HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-20_COUNCIL PACKETAGENDA
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 20,1998
7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL
ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Adoption of the Consent Agenda is made by the
Commissioners as to HRA items and by the Council Members as to Council items. All agenda items
marked with an asterisk ( *) in bold print are Consent Agenda items and are considered routine and
will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items unless a
Commissioner, Council Member or citizen so requests it. In such cases the item will be removed from
the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the Agenda.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of HRA - Regular Meeting of April 6,1998
II. WMEP UPDATE
III. CHANGE ORDER - HRA CONTRACT 97 -2 C.S. McCrossan, Centennial Lakes
Rollcall IV. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS as per pre -list dated 4/15/98 TOTAL: $28,937.47
V. ADJOURNMENT
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
ARBOR DAY PROCLAMATION
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of April 6, 1998Special Meeting of April 6,
1998, and Board of Review Minutes of April 13,1998
.II. PUBLIC HEARING OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
Presentation by Engineer. Public comment heard. Motion to close hearing. If Council wishes
to proceed, action by resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of the Council
required to pass if improvement is petitioned for; 4/5 favorable rollcall vote required if no
petition
Rollcall A. CONCRETE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO.S -75 - Maple Road
Rollcall B. STREET RESURFACING IMPROVEMENT NO. A -183 & STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT
NO. STS -252 - Wooddale Glen
Rollcall C. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENT NO. A -095 - Wooddale Lane
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS - Affidavits of Notice by
Clerk. Presentation by Planner. Public comment heard. Motion to close hearing. Zoning
Ordinances: First and Second Reading require 4/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of
Council to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: 4/5 favorable rollcall of all members of Council to
pass. Final Development Plan Approval of Property Zoned Planned District: 3/5 favorable
rollcall vote required to pass. Conditional Use Permit: 3/5 favorable rollcall vote required to
pass.
Agenda/Edina City Council
April 20,1998
Page 2
* A. Set Public Hearing Date (5/4/98) Conditional Use Permit, Christ Presbyterian Church
Expansion
IV. AWARD OF BID
* A. Irrigation System, Arneson Acres Park
* B. Rejected Bid - Salt Storage Building, Public Works
* C. Sidewalk Plow, Street Department
V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
* A. Traffic Safety Report of April 7,1998
B Naming of Braemar Arena Commons Area, Park Board Recommendation
C. Regulation of Campaign Signs
D. Amendment to Traffic Agreement
* E. Resolution "No Parking" West 78th Street
* F Resolution Ordering Project, Authorizing Plans & Spec, 761h Street & United Properties
Driveway (100% Petition Improvement)
* G. Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT - Traffic Signal, TH 169 and Londonberry Road
VI. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS
VII. CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
VIII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
IX. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL
X. MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEM
XI. FINANCE
Rollcall A. Payment of Claims as per Pre -List dated 4/15/98 TOTAL: $968,447.77 and for confirmation
of Payment of Claims as per Pre -List dated 4/3/98 TOTAL: $273.767.56
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Wed
Apr 22
Special Closed Council Meeting
7:00 P.M.
MANAGERS CONF. RM
Mon
May 4
Regular Council Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mon
May 18
Regular Council Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mon
May 19
SPECIAL ELECTION SD 273 REFERENDA
Mon
May 25
MEMORIAL DAY OBSERVED - City Hall Closed
Mon
Jun 1
Regular Council Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mon
Jun 15
Regular Council Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Fri
Jul 3
INDEPENDENCE DAY OBSERVED - City Hall Closed
Mon
Jul 6
Regular Council Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mon
July 20
Regular Council Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
w9�N�1r'1
e
Ido s
O,
City of Edina
April 6, 1998
TO: Mayor Smith
Council Member Faust
Council Member Hovland
Council Member Kelly
Council Member Maetzold
FROM: Ken Rosland, City Manager
On the first of May, I start my 41" year with the City of Edina. Prior 0 starting in 1958
full time, I worked part-time as I was completing my education upon returning from the
service. My career here obviously has been long and hopefully fruitful.
With this said, I would like to announce my retirement as of October 31, 1998. I
may extend to December 31 S`, depending upon certain retirement decisions I need to
make. However, I should be able to let you know in a short time which date it will be.
I certainly enjoyed my working challenges here at the City of Edina. My interest in the
Park and Recreation field was my major focus for the first 20 years, at which time I had
opportunities to develop many facilities —from golf courses to art centers to historical
Tupa Park. I have spent the last 20 years in Administration where there were many other
things I had the opportunity to develop and accomplish.
However, what I believe is the most important thing I accomplished is the hiring of the
people who really work hard to make this City what it is— people with a twinkle in their
eyes. Some of you have heard me say this before, but I believe it is true. If I have a
legacy, it is the people who I leave behind to continue what I believe is the good work
they have already done in this City. I personally want to thank you and your predecessors
for the opportunity I have had to serve the City of Edina.
KR/sh
Accepted by City Council April 6, 1998
City Hall
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 5542.3 -1394
Otlq- 2-//7/�-J-
(612) 927 -8861
FAX (612) 927 -7645
TDD (612) 927 -5461
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD AT CITY HALL
APRIL 6, 1998 - 7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Faust, Kelly, Maetzold and Chair
Smith.
CONSENT AGENDA Motion made by Commissioner Maetzold and seconded by
Commissioner Faust to adopt the Consent Agenda Items as presented.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Motion carried.
*MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 16, 1998, APPROVED Motion
made by Commissioner Maetzold and seconded by Commissioner Faust
approving the Minutes of the Regular HRA Meeting of March 16, 1998.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
KUNZ OIL /LEWIS ENGINEERING PROPERTIES UPDATE GIVEN Executive Director
Hughes explained on March 23, 1998, the Board of Education for the Edina School
adopted a resolution with respect to the WMEP School being proposed for the Kunz
Oil /Lewis Engineer properties. In addition, he presented written responses to various
questions raised by the Council at the February 22, 1998, workshop.
Staff hoped the State Legislature would have completed their deliberations concerning
funding of the WMEP School in time for the April 6, 1998, Council meeting. At meeting
time, no decision had been reached. Our Legislative Representative of the Municipal
Legislative Commission, Robert Renner, reported the House /Senate Conference
Committee continues to deliberate on the proposed bonding bill. As of April 2, 1998, no
decision had been reached concerning this bill. He noted further the Legislature hopes
to adjourn no later than April 9, 1998. Therefore, Mr. Renner would expect a bill may
emerge from the Conference Committee on April 6 or 7.
Based on the above, staff would assume the HRA would prefer to continue their
consideration on the proposals until the April 20, 1998, meeting. At that time, results of
the Legislative Session would be available.
Commissioner Kelly said he believed the School Board's hearing process on this issue
should be open to the public.
Commissioner Faust voiced concern that questions the League of Women Voters
submitted to the School Board were not answered. She said it was hard to support the
project until answers are provided. For instance, two questions are, which parks WMEP
1
plans on using for their playground; and who would provide the security on the
playground when the public and private sectors are meshed. She feels there has been
no effort to answer these concerns. She suggested if a public.meeting were held that it
be televised to reach as many residents as possible.
Chair Smith commented the issue will be back on the agenda when it needs to be and
concluded it seems with no funding there is no issue.
CLAIMS PAID Commissioner Faust made a motion to approve payment of the
HRA Claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated April 1, 1998, and
consisting of one page totaling $7,722.99. Commissioner Maetzold seconded the
motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Motion carried.
There being no further business on the HRA Agenda, Chair Smith declared the meeting
adjourned.
Executive Director
Pq
%,A
O
le
Vabo
lees //
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To: HRA
Agenda Item #
HRA II.
From: GORDON L. HUGHES
Consent
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Information Only
Date: APRIL 20, 1998
Mgr. Recommends
To HRA
Subject:
®
To Council
WMEP UPDATE
Action
F-1
Motion
Resolution
Ordinance
®
Discussion
Recommendation:
Discuss alternatives.
Report:
At the April 6, 1998, meeting, staff provided the HRA with an update concerning
the WMEP proposal. Since that meeting, the Legislature has acted on the
bonding bill. In its final form, this bill allocated $2 million for this school rather
than the $13.2 million which had been requested. The apparent logic for the $2
million allocation was to complete site purchase and to undertake planning
studies. The Legislature would apparently then consider funding for the building
during the 2000 Legislative Session.
Staff has met with School District staff to discuss the effect of the Legislation on
the School District's proposal for the Kunz Oil /Lewis Engineering properties. The
School District staff states that the District remains interested in using the
Legislative allocation to purchase the subject property for later development
when and if the school were funded. They also note that they may be interested
in pursuing other locations in the City.
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION - WMEP UPDATE
April 20, 1998
Page two
Based upon this response from the School District, we believe that the HRA
needs to discuss alternatives for the Kunz Oil /Lewis Engineering properties. It
may be advisable to again conduct a joint meeting with the Board of Education to
discuss this further.
tNA.
owe tt
0
. fN loss
REPORURECOMMENDATION
To: HRA
Agenda Item #
HRA II.
From: GORDON L. HUGHES
Consent
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Information Only
Date: APRIL 20, 1998
Mgr. Recommends
To HRA
Subject:
®
To Council
WMEP UPDATE
Action
Motion
Resolution
Ordinance
®
Discussion
Recommendation:
Discuss alternatives.
Report:
At the April 6, 1998, meeting, staff provided the HRA with an update concerning
the WMEP proposal. Since that meeting, the Legislature has acted on the
bonding bill. In its final form, this bill allocated $2 million for this school rather
than the $13.2 million which had been requested. The apparent logic for the $2
million allocation was to complete site purchase and to undertake planning
studies. The Legislature would apparently then consider funding for the building
during the 2000 Legislative Session.
Staff has met with School District staff to discuss the effect of the Legislation on
the School District's proposal for the Kunz Oil /Lewis Engineering properties. The
School District staff states that the District remains interested in using the
Legislative allocation to purchase the subject property for later development
when and if the school were funded. They also note that they may be interested
in pursuing other locations in the City.
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION - WMEP UPDATE
April 20, 1998
Page two
Based upon this response from the School District, we believe that the HRA
needs to discuss alternatives for the Kunz Oil /Lewis Engineering properties. It
may be advisable to again conduct a joint meeting with the Board of Education to
discuss this further.
REPORURECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council 1
From: Francis J. Hoffma� %�f
City Engineer
Date: April 20, 1998
Subject: Contract 97 -2 (HRA)
Centennial Lakes South Pond
Mass Grading - Change
Order
Recommendation:
Agenda Item # HIS,. Ill.
Consent
Information Only ❑
Mgr: Recommends ® To HRA
❑ To Council
Action ® Motion
Approve change order for $13,500.00 for grading adjustment on Building 4.
Info /Background:
Resolution
Ordinance
Discussion
Due to the impending construction of Buildings 3 and 4 of the Centennial Lakes project,
the HRA needs to provide an additional change order to its current contractor, C.S.
McCrossan, Inc. This change order request is a result of the final positioning of
Building 4 on the east side of the pond. This will require regrading to accommodate the
Building 4 construction. This change order is for cutting the pond liner, removing
boulders, regrading the east side of the pond, and filling and compacting the pond
areas as necessary. The change order amount is $13,500.00. Currently, McCrossan
has a mass grading project which is to be completed June 30, 1998. However, due to
the building schedules the grading must be completed in five stages prior to June 301h
In order to do this, McCrossan requested a change order in the amount of $5,000.00 for
the adjustment in the contract and was approved by the HRA on February 17, 1998.
Currently change orders for a total of $13,579.67 have been approved on a $99,300.00
contract. The ten percent limit will be exceeded with this latest change order. This
requires HRA approval. Staff would recommend the change order.
COUNCIL
CHEG._ _.EGISTER
15 -.2., 1998 (18:58)
page 1
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13293
04/20/98
$1,203.30
BRAUN INTERTEC
enviro tests
101891
GRANDVIEW
PRO FEE
ARCH /E
04/20/98
$2,733.25
BRAUN INTERTEC
Prof eng sere
102179
CENTENNIAL
LAK
PARKS
< *>
$3,936.55*
13294
04/20/98
$21,093.37
BRW INC.
Arch fees
2670347
CENTENNIAL
LAK
PRO FEE
ARCH /E
04/20/98
$1,178.41
BRW INC.
Arch fees
26703649
CENTENNIAL
LAK
PRO FEE
ARCH /E
< *>
$22,271.78*
13295
04/20/98
$2,022.38
EARL F. ANDERSON
PARKS
8035
CENTENNIAL
LAK
PARKS
2672
< *>
$2,022.38*
13296
04/20/98
$576.76
PRIOR LAKE AGGREGATE
Boulders
803071
CENTENNIAL
LAK
PARKS
3295
< *>
$576.76*
13297
04/20/98
$130.00
SANDERS WACKER WEHRMAN
B Arch test
95209
GRANDVIEW
PRO FEE
ARCH /E
< *>
$130.00*
$28,937.47*
PROCLAMATION
ARBOR DAY
April 24, 1998
WHEREAS, In 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a
special day be set aside for the planting of trees, and
WHEREAS, This holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than
a million trees in Nebraska, and
WHEREAS, Arbor Day in now observed throughout the nation and the world, and
WHEREAS, trees area most valuable resource, purifying our air, helping conserve our soil
and energy, serving as a recreational setting, providing a habitat for wildlife of all
kinds, and enriching our lives in other important ways; and
WHEREAS, disease, insects and pollution have damaged and continue to threaten our trees,
creating the need for tree. care and tree planting programs and fostering greater
public concern for the future of our urban forest; and
WHEREAS, Edina is proud of the beautiful shade trees which grace our homes and public
places; and
WHEREAS, Edina has been recognized for the past ten years as a Tree City USA by The
National Arbor Day Foundation and desires to continue the planting of trees for
its future,
NOW, THEREFORE, I Glenn L. Smith, Mayor Edina, do hereby proclaim April 24, 1998, to be
Arbor Day and call upon the spirited and foresighted citizens of Edina to plant
trees now for our pleasure and that of future generations. l'
Dated this 20th day of April, 1998
Glenn L. Smith, Mayor
City of Edina
MINUTES
OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT CITY HALL
APRIL -6, -1998 = 6:00 P. -M.
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Faust, Kelly, Maetzold and Mayor
Smith.
Mayor Smith noted the purpose of the special session was to review procedures for the
upcoming Board of Review, scheduled for April 13,1998 at 5:00 p.m.
Assessor Petersburg briefly reviewed the statutory requirements for the Board of
Equalization or Board of Review. The Board's purpose is to review the assessed value
and classification of taxable property in the City as determined by the Assessor.
Assessor Petersburg explained that 18,000 value notices had been mailed to Edina
property owners in February. To date, staff has had about 1,000 phone calls, sent out 41
applications to owners (Board or Review requests) and received 28 completed
applications requesting reexamination of property value.
Assessor Petersburg noted the process his staff has been following since the valuation
notices were mailed include:
1. Initial Contact (phone/ counter), identify owner, property & concern, attempt to
explain and diffuse concern, and record the contact
2. Phase 2 Set up review appointment and inspect, complete review appraisal (Sales
Comp Grid), review findings with owner, review finding and review appraisal with
supervisor, formalize review appraisal
3. Phase 3 Give owner Board Application and explain process. Applications given out
by appraisers only. Log application when sent and when received after completed
by property owner.
The procedure that the Assessing Department follows in response to Board of Review
Applications was discussed. Assessor Petersburg briefly reviewed the Board Book put
together by his staff.
Council reviewed the Board of Review schedule. The initial meeting will be held at 5:00
p.m. April 13,1998, with the continuation meeting on April 20,1998 at 5:00 p.m.
Council discussed the proposed board processes and schedules.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Smith declared the
meeting adjourned at 6:50 P.M.
City Clerk
Page 1
MINUTES
OF THE MEETING OF THE
EDINA BOARD OF REVIEW HELD AT CITY HALL
APRIL 13, 1998 AT 5:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Faust, Kelly, Hovland, Maetzold and Mayor Smith
The meeting was convened pursuant to published Notice of Board of Review in the Edina Sun -
Current and notice posted on City bulletin boards for the purpose of hearing those persons who
considered themselves aggrieved by their property valuation for assessment purposes, or who
were requesting homestead classification.
Mayor Smith stated no decision would be made at this meeting, but that property owners would be
notified of the Board's decision within twenty days. Further appeal may be made to the Hennepin
County Board of Equalization beginning June 15, 1998.
The following property owners appeared personally before the Board, or were represented to
object to the Assessor's estimated market value as of January 2, 1998:
Name /Address
Gary Phillips
Dennis & Sandra Walsh
Peter & Georgine Johnson
Frank & Janet Lederle
Kit & Sumonda Arom
PID Number
32- 028 -24 -24 -0361
7350 York Av. S
30- 117 -21 -42 -0021
5012 Schaefer Road
07- 028 -24 -42 -0042
430942 nd St. W.
18- 028 -24 -21 -037
4507 Browndale Ave.
30- 117 -21 -43 -0063
5200 Schaefer Rd.
Harry Lindberry, represented 30- 117 -21 -23 -002 & others
by Robert Gisvold, Esq. 6901 Maloney Avenue
Theodor H. Herman 06- 116 -21 -32 -0047
6720 Samuel Road
Norman Company 28- 117 -21 -0038
Norman Bjorness, Jr. 5400 Vernon Av.
Norman Company 30- 117 -21 -32 -0019 & 30- 117 -21 -33 -0064
Norman Bjorness, Jr. 5200 -5241 Lincoln Dr.
James Platt, Jr. 08- 116 -21 -33 -0142
7723 Tanglewood Ct.
Assessors
Est. Mkt. Val
$47,900
$735,000
$131,900
$464,800
$1,981,800
$930,000
$155,300
$6,600,400
$9,647,200
$249,700
Owner's Est.
of Mkt. Val
$43,500
$535,000
$124,500
$420,000
$1,650,000
0
$145,000
$5,885,300
$8,682,500
$236,960
The Council heard the owners present their reasons for requesting reductions and in some cases,
asked questions clarifying issues.
Minutes /Edina Board of Review /April 14. 1997
The owners of the following properties submitted applications or letters objecting to their market `
value and requested the Board's review, however, the owners
did not appear personally:
Assessors
Owner's Est.
Name /Address
PID Number
Est. Mkt. Val
of Mkt. Val
Irving & Charlotte Nydell
07- 028 -24 -13 -0040
$137,200
$132,000
4015 Lynn Av. S.
John Carlson
32- 117 -21 -12 -0047
$189,000
$179,000
5509 Merritt Circle
Prakash & Kamala Puram
05- 116 -21 -41 -0066
$244,000
$229,000
6627 Limerick Drive
Donald H. Hansen
06- 116 -21 -32 -0071
$390,000
$375,000
6737 Apache Road
Michael & Allison Pelach
18- 028 -24 -14 -0056
$180,800
$170,000
4833 Townes Road
Jacquleine S. Mithun
18- 028 -24 -44 -0067
$186,500
$177,000
5308 Halifax Av.
Timothy & Kristi Healy
07- 028 -24-43 -0058
$227,000
$179,000
4409 Morningside Road
Robert Levine, Partner
08- 116 -21 -11 -0018
$918,200
$760,000
5400 W. 701h St.
Robert & Margaret Fink
31- 117 -21 -11 -0008
$445,00
$350,000
6200 Parkwood Rd
Marie Hidem & Michael Mankey
07- 028 -24 -44 -0050
$151,300
$137,000
4007 Sunnyside Road
Ann Marie & Britt Rogers
19- 028 -24- 114 -0063
$325,000
5641 Woodcrest Dr.
Donald M. Gjevre
31- 028 -24 -21 -0009
$195,300
7016 West Shore Dr.
The following person came to the
Board of Review, and objected to their assessed value, however,
did not wait to speak personally.
Assessors
Owner's Est.
Name /Address
PID Number
Est. Mkt. Val
of Mkt. Val
Cheryl Eastbourne
28- 117 -21 -23 -0100
$186,000
$171,000
5233 Hollywood Road
No further appeals being presented,
the 1998 Board of Review meeting was continued to Monday,
April 20, 1998, at 5:00 p.m. for decision
on the appeals presented
City Clerk
Page 2
3
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT CITY HALL
APRIL 6,1998 - 7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Faust, Kelly, Maetzold and Mayor
Smith.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Maetzold and
seconded by Member Faust to approve and adopt the Consent Agenda as presented
with the exception of Agenda Item IV.A. Commodities Purchase, Public Works, and
V.C. Resolution Receiving Feasibility Reports, Maple Road Sidewalk, Wooddale
Glen Street and Storm Sewer and Wooddale Lane Curb and Gutter Improvements.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Motion carried.
APRIL 22,1998, EARTH DAY PROCLAIMED Mayor Smith proclaimed April 22,1998,
as Earth Day in the City of Edina. The 1998 celebration is the 28th annual Earth Day
which was begun as a long -term endeavor to build a planet that would be clean,
healthy, prosperous and sustainable. Edina residents can shape our environment and
solve natural resource problems through good land use, transportation, solid waste,
wastewater treatment, and zoning decisions. It is time for everyone to increase their
understanding and the importance of participation in these programs and to gain a
general respect for all natural resources.
*MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 16, 1998, APPROVED
Motion made by Member Maetzold and seconded by Member Faust approving the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 16,1998.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
VACATION OF UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT APPROVED - SOUTH
EDINA DEVELOPMENT ADDITION THIRD ADDITION (UNITED PROPERTIE51
Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed 'on file.
Presentation by Engineer
Engineer Hoffman stated the request is for the vacation of easements placed by earlier
plats. He noted staff and the appropriate utility companies have reviewed the request
and do not oppose the vacation. The City will retain a fifteen foot easement as shown on
the South Edina Development Fourth Addition Plat. Engineer Hoffman recommended
approval of the vacation of the drainage and utility easement as requested, subject to
any relocation required by Minnegasco or Paragon being paid for by the developer.
Member Kelly introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION VACATING EASEMENT
Page 1
Minutes/Edina City Council/April 6,1998
FOR UTILITY AND DRAINAGE PURPOSES
SOUTH EDINA DEVELOPMENT THIRD ADDITION
WHEREAS, a motion of the City Council, on the 2nd of March 1998, fixed a date for a
public hearing on a proposed vacation of an easement for utility and drainage
purposes; and
WHEREAS, two weeks published and posted notice of said hearing was given and
the hearing was held on the 6th day of April, 1998, at which time all persons desiring
to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the
public that said easement vacation be made; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered the extent the vacation affects existing easements
within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the
authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling electric,
telephone or cable television poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes,
mains, and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation to continue
maintaining the same, or to enter upon such easement area or portion thereof vacated
to maintain, repair, replace, remove or otherwise attend thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following described utility and drainage
easement be and is hereby vacated effective as of April 6,1998:
All of the DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT in OUTLOT A, SOUTH EDINA
DEVELOPMENT THIRD ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County Minnesota, as donated and dedicated by said plat of SOUTH
EDINA DEVELOPMENT THIRD ADDITION.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause
a notice of completion of proceedings to be prepared, entered in the transfer record of
the County Auditor, and filed with the County Recorder, in accordance , with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.85.
Adopted this 6th day of April, 1998. Member Faust seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Resolution adopted.
VACATION OF UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT APPROVED
PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24TH ADDITION (PARKWOOD KNOLLS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and
ordered placed on file.
Presentation by Engineer
Page 2
ILI
Minutes/Edina City Council/April 6,1998
Engineer Hoffman stated the request is for the vacation of a portion of an easement
placed by the plat of Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition plat. He noted staff and the
appropriate utility companies have reviewed the request and do not oppose the
vacation because an adequate easement remains. Engineer Hoffman recommended
approval of the vacation of the drainage and utility easement as requested.
Member Maetzold introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION VACATING EASEMENT
FOR UTILITY AND DRAINAGE PURPOSES
PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24TH ADDITION
WHEREAS, a motion of the City Council, on the 16th of March, 1998, fixed a date for
a public hearing on a proposed vacation of an easement for utility and drainage
purposes; and
WHEREAS, two weeks published and posted notice of said hearing was given and
the hearing was held on the 6th day of April, 1998, at which time all persons desiring
to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the
public that said easement vacation be made; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered the extent the vacation affects existing easements
within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the
authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling electric,
telephone or cable television poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes,
mains, and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation to continue
maintaining the same, or to enter upon such easement area or portion thereof vacated
to maintain, repair, replace, remove or otherwise attend thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following described utility and drainage
easement be and is hereby vacated effective as of April 6,1998:
That part of Lot 21, Block 2, PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24TH ADDITION, according to
the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin
County, Minnesota as described as follows:
The northerly 5.00 feet of the southerly 10.00 feet of said Lot 21, lying westerly of the
easterly 10.00 feet and easterly of the westerly 10.00 feet of said Lot 21.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause
a notice of completion of proceedings to be prepared, entered in the transfer record of
the County Auditor, and filed with the County Recorder, in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.85.
Adopted this 6th day of April, 1998. Member Faust seconded the motion.
Page 3
Minutes/Edina City Council/April 6,1998
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Resolution adopted.
*HEARING DATE OF MAY 4, 1998, CONTINUED FOR VACATION OF A
PORTION OF WEST 69TH STREET (CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH) Motion
made by Member Maetzold and seconded by Member Faust to continue the hearing
date for vacation of a portion of West 69th Street (Christ Presbyterian Church) until
May 4,1998.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
ORDINANCE NO 1998 -3 ADOPTED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
900 - LICENSED WINE MANAGERS Assistant Manager Hughes noted at the March
16, 1998, meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment
regarding wine managers. The Council requested that owners, officers, and partners
named in the on -sale wine license application should receive a wine manager license
without the need for the payment of additional fees or further investigations. A draft
ordinance was provided.for such licensing on the condition that only those individuals
who have complied with ordinance requirements regarding alcohol awareness training
may receive a wine manager license. Staff recommends first reading of the ordinance.
Following a brief Council discussion, Member Kelly introduced the following
Ordinance and moved waiver of second reading:
ORDINANCE NO. 1998-03
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION OF THE CITY CODE
TO PROVIDE MANAGER'S LICENSES FOR
HOLDERS OF ON -SALE WINE LICENSES
The City Council of the City of Edina Ordains:
Section 1. Section 6 of Subsection 900.16 of the City Code is amended by
adding a new paragraph D. as follows:
D. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Subd. 6, any owner, partner or
corporate officer named in the application for an on -sale wine license shall,
upon issuance of the on -sale wine license, also be issued a manager's
license, provided that such owner, partner or corporate officer has complied
with the training requirement imposed by paragraph B. of Subd. 7 of this
Subsection. No additional fee for a manager's license application as
required by Section 185 of this Code shall be required of such individuals.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon passage.
Adopted this 6th day of April, 1998.
Attest:
City Clerk Mayor
Member Faust seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Ordinance adopted.
Page 4
Minutes/Edina City Council/April 6,1998
AWARD OF BID FOR COMMODITIES PURCHASE (PUBLIC WORKS) Public
Works Director Hoffman explained he asked this bid be removed from the consent
agenda to award the bid of FA -2 Seal Coat Chips (delivered) to Dresser Trap Rock at
$19.34 per ton. When the bids were awarded, Hassan Sand and Gravel was low bidder.
Following delivery of a sample, Hassan Sand and Gravel's product did not meet
specifications. Therefore, the bid was awarded to Dresser Trap Rock whose product did
meet all specifications.
Member Maetzold made a motion for award of bid for sand, rock, bituminous
materials, concrete, propane and engine oil to recommended low bidders as follows:
Concrete Sand (delivered) to SA -AG at $4.35 per ton, Course Sand (delivered) (Metro
Seal) to SA -AG at $5.40 per ton; Buck Shot (delivered) to Prior Lake Aggregate at
$11.20 per ton; C1.2 Limestone (delivered) to Shiely Company at $6.62 per ton, FA -3
Seal Coat Chips (delivered) to Dresser Trap Rock at $15.91 per ton; Asphalt 2331 (Base
Type 31 or 32) (picked up at plant) to Bituminous Roadways* (vendor 1) at $17.75 per
ton or C.S. McCrossan (vendor 2) at $16.40 per ton; Asphalt 2331 (Base Type 31 or 32)
(delivered) to Bituminous Roadways at $21.25 per ton; Asphalt 2331 (Type 41A & 42)
Wear (picked up) to Bituminous Roadways* at $18.50 per ton or C.S. McCrossan
(alternate) at $18.25 per ton, Asphalt 2331 (type 41A and 42) (delivered) to Bituminous
Roadways at $22.00 per ton, Asphalt 2331 (Wear (type 41A/42B) (picked up) to
Bituminous Roadways* (vendor 1) at $18.00 per ton or C.S. McCrossan (vendor 2) at
$17.20 per ton; 2331 41B/42B Asphalt Wear (delivered) to Bituminous Roadways at
$21.50 per ton, 2331 Type 31 Asphalt Wear (picked up) to Bituminous Roadways*
(vendor 1) at $18.50 per ton or C.S. McCrossan (vendor 2) at $17.00 per ton, 2331 Type
31 Asphalt Wear (delivered) to Bituminous Roadways at $22.00 per ton; Concrete 1 -3
• ay rds (delivered) to Cemstone at $67.00 per cubic yard; Concrete 3 +,yards (delivered)
to CAMAS, Inc., Model Ready Mix at $64.48 per cubic yard; Emulisified Asphalt
CRS2 ** to Marathon Ashland at $0.5549 per gallon; Emulisified Tack Oil * ** to Koch
Materials at $0.6702 per gallon; Engine Oil 15/40 to Hallman Oil at $2.89 per gallon,
Engine Oil 40W to South Minnesota Oil Company at $3.42 per gallon; Engine Oil
5W/30 to Hallman Oil at $2.89 per gallon; Engine Oil Hyd. Tellus T46 to South
Minnesota Oil Company at $3.13 per gallon; Engine Oil ATF -Donox TG to South
Minnesota Oil Co. at $2.89 per gallon; Engine Oil 15W40 to South Minnesota Oil Co.
at $13.22 per gallon, Rubberized Crack Filler to Construction Materials at $$0.294 per
gallon, Red Ball Aggregate to Byran Rock at $10.67 per ton, Cut -Back Asphalt RC
(delivered) to Koch Materials at $0.9404 per gallon; Lannon Stone Wall Repair to
Bjork Stone at $8.00 at S.F.; Winter Asphalt Mix to Bituminous Roadways at $41.50
per ton, Manhole Covers to Ess Brothers at $72.80 each, and to recommended second
bidder Dresser Trap Rock, for FA -2 Seal Coat Chips (delivered) at $19.34 per ton
( *these bids are awarded on basis of total cost per ton including trucking and labor)
(* *low bid from Koch Refinery rejected due to poor performance of past product),
( * ** bid rejected because supplier unable to deliver in specified quantity). Member
Faust seconded the motion.
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Motion carried.
Page 5
Minutes/Edina City Council/April 6,1998
*BID AWARDED FOR COPIER FOR CITY HALL (XEROX) Motion made by
Member Maetzold and seconded by Member Faust for award of bid for one digital
copier /network laser printer to recommended bidder, Xerox Corporation under State
of MN Contract #M -6897, at $25,900.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*AWARD OF BID CONTINUED TO APRIL 20, 1998, FOR SALT STORAGE
BUILDING (PUBLIC WORKS) Motion made by Member Maetzold and seconded by
Member Faust to continue the award of bid for a salt storage building at public
works until April 20,1998.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR REPLACEMENT POLICE PISTOLS Motion made by
Member Maetzold and seconded by Member Faust for award of bid for Police Duty
Pistols to recommended low bidder, Streichers Police Equipment at $15,660.79.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR ONE TON PICK -UP (PUBLIC WORKS) Motion made by
Member Maetzold and seconded by Member Faust for award of bid for one ton pick-
up to recommended bidder, Erickson Chevrolet under Hennepin County Cooperative
Purchasing Program at $17,594.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR INSURANCE RENEWALS; 1) LAW ENFORCEMENT
LIABILITY, AND 2) PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S LIABILITY Motion made by Member
Maetzold and seconded by Member Faust for award of bid for Law Enforcement
Liability Insurance to sole bidder, St. Paul Companies at $26,095.00, and for Public
Official's Liability Insurance to sole bidder, St. Paul Companies at $15,887.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR PLUMBING FOR PARK SHELTER BUILDINGS Motion
made by Member Maetzold and seconded by Member Faust for award of bid for
plumbing for four park shelter buildings and three park comfort stations to
recommended low bidder, DC Sales Company, Inc., at $19,257.86.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR WATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS FOR CITY WELLS
AND SWIMMING POOLS Motion made by Member Maetzold and seconded by
Member Faust for award of bid for water treatment chemicals for City wells and
swimming pools to recommended low bidder, Dixie Petro Chemicals (Hydrofluosilic
Acid & Liquid Chlorine) at $48.00 per CWT and to sole bidder Hawkins Chemical
(Caustic Soda) at $25.00 per CWT.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
Page 6
i
Minutes/Edina City Council/April 6,1998
RESOLUTION APPROVED DESIGNATING MnDOT TO PREPARE OFFICIAL
MAP OF I-494 ALIGNMENT Planner Larsen explained that an official right -of -way
map, prepared by MnDOT and approved by affected cities, has two primary benefits:
1) To identify all additional right -of -ways necessary for reconstruction of I-494.
This puts cities in a stronger legal position when considering proposed private
development which encroach in the . area needed for reconstruction. It would also
provide access to a possible funding source for right -of -way acquisition.
2) To help give proposed I-494 improvements a higher priority in the
competition for highway construction dollars.
Staff recommends adoption of a resolution requiring that MnDOT prepare an official
right -of -way map for the I-494 corridor.
Following a brief Council discussion, Member Maetzold introduced the following
resolution seconded by Member Faust and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING MnDOT
TO PREPARE AN OFFICIAL RIGHT -OF -WAY MAP
WHEREAS, I-494 is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of
transportation (MnDOT); and
WHEREAS, extensive time, effort, involvement, and funds went into the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for that portion of I-494
between I -394 and the Minnesota River; and
WHEREAS, a preferred alternative was selected in accordance with said EIS
which sets forth proposed right -of -way needs along its route; and
WHEREAS, limitations on funding have resulted in the delay of the adoption
and final approval as well as implementation of the EIS; and
WHEREAS, the provision of an adequate transportation system is vital to the
state, the Metropolitan area, and particularly to the communities along its route; and
WHEREAS, the lack of an official right -of -way map potentially jeopardizes the
future ability of this vital transportation link being implemented due to
encroachment of development, and
WHEREAS, the establishment of an official right -of -way map would clearly
define the public needs and significantly aid all levels of government in protecting
said needs for the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that to properly protect the public
transportation needs along I-494 between I -394 and the Minnesota River that an
official right -of -way map along this corridor is extremely important, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that delay in establishing said official right -of-
way map will seriously jeopardize the ability of the public to attain the necessary
transportation needs along this corridor, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Department of
Transportation is hereby requested to prepare and establish said official right -of -way
map as soon as possible.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
Page 7
Minutes/Edina City Council/April 6,1998
DONATION ACCEPTED FROM EDINA GARDEN COUNCIL FOR ARNESON
ACRES PARK FOUNTAIN Park Director Keprios reported the Edina Garden Council
has graciously offered to donate a water feature fountain for the center of the formal
gardens at Arneson Acres Park. The Edina Garden Council established their desired
specifications and solicited quotes from vendors. Following receipt of the quotes and
presentation of the plans to the Park Board, the Board moved to accept the wonderful
gift from the Garden Council and commended them for their numerous years of
continued support to the City. The fountain, as proposed by Northern Water Gardens at
$25,000.00, was conceptually what the Garden Council desired and with the added
bonus of being the low bidder. Construction should take 2 - 3 weeks and be completed
in June. Following completion, the City would be responsible for maintenance and
operation of the fountain. Residents from the Arneson Acres Park neighborhood
support the idea.
Director Keprios introduced Garden Council Members, Ann White, Marlys Swetman,
Shirley Petersen, and Marjorie Ruedy.
Member Kelly thanked the Edina Garden Council for their generosity and graciously
accepted the donation of the water feature fountain for the center of the formal
gardens at Arneson Acres Park. Member Maetzold seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Motion carried.
Mayor Smith made a motion, seconded by Members Faust, Kelly and Maetzold
approving a resolution of thanks to the Edina Garden Council for their philanthropic
donations to Arneson Acres Park and for their support of Edina's park system by
growing from seed, and planting beautiful flowers throughout the City's Parks.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Motion carried.
RESOLUTION APPROVING RECEIPT OF FEASIBILITY REPORTS FOR MAPLE
ROAD SIDEWALK, WOODDALE .GLEN STREET AND STORM SEWER AND
WOODDALE LAKE CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Member Faust said
she removed the approval of receipt of feasibility reports for Maple Road sidewalk,
Wooddale Glen street and storm sewer and Wooddale Lake curb and gutter
improvements from the Council Agenda for additional information. She inquired
whether a traffic study could be done. Assistant Engineer Houle explained when the
Traffic Safety Committee meets on April 7, 1998, Strgar, Roscoe Fausch (SRF) could be
asked to submit a proposal for a traffic study.
Member Maetzold introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City Council received a petition from residents requesting
sidewalks on Maple Road, Improvement No. S -75 and street surfacing and storm
Page 8
14
Minutes/Edina City Council/April 6,1998
sewer on Wooddale Glen, Improvement No. A -183 June16,1997, and referred it to the
Engineering Department requesting a feasibility report, and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a petition from residents requesting
installation of curb and gutter on Wooddale Lane, Improvement No. A -095, August
18, 1997, and referred it to the Engineering Department requesting a feasibility
report, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has set a public hearing date for the proposed
improvements for April 20,1998, at 7:00 P.M.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the feasibility reports received by
them April 6, 1998, will be considered at the previously called public hearing April
20, 1998, and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of
said improvements shall be considered at that time.
Adopted this 6th day of April, 1998. Member Faust seconded the motion.
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Resolution adopted.
APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENT MADE TO THE EDINA FOUNDATION
Mayor Smith noted an application had been submitted from Otto Bang, indicating his
interest in filling an unexpired term to June 2000 on The Edina Foundation Board.
Mayor Smith recommended appointment of Otto Bang to fill this unexpired term.
Member Faust made a motion appointing Otto Bang to fill the unexpired term on The
Edina Foundation Board, term to June 2000. Member Kelly seconded the motion.
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Motion carried.
Mayor Smith noted that Kevin Ries reappointment has not been formalized. He
recommended reappointing Mr. Ries for a term to June, 1999.
Member Maetzold made a motion reappointing Kevin Ries to The Edina Foundation
Board, term to June, 1, 1999. Member Faust seconded the motion.
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Motion carried.
RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF REPORT ON SANITARY
SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Engineer Hoffman presented the completed
Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer System Improvements (Part 1) completed by Toltz,
King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Inc. (TKDA). The report covers the projects that
should be completed during the 1998 construction season. Staff would recommend
plans and specifications be ordered for these projects. Some modifications may occur,
but could be dealt with during final design. Copies of this report are on file in the office
of the City Clerk.
Member Kelly introduced the following resolution and moved its approval:
RESOLUTION
Page 9
Minutes/Edina City Council/April 6,1998
WHEREAS, the City Council received the final reports on the storm sewer and
sanitary sewer systems in Edina from its consultants, December 15, 1997, detailing
potential improvements to the aforementioned systems, and
WHEREAS, the City Council December 15, 1998 ordered staff to develop more
detailed project implementation feasibility reports for the potential improvements.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council receives the feasibility report prepared
by TKDA, consulting engineers, for Sanitary Sewer System Improvements, Part 1.
Adopted this 61h day of April, 1998. Member Maetzold seconded the motion.
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Resolution adopted.
*HEARING DATE SET OF MAY 4, 1998, FOR PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENT VACATION, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, (NORMANDALE KREISER REPLAT)
Member Maetzold made a motion, seconded by Member Faust setting May 4,1998, as
hearing date for public drainage and utility easement vacation for Lot 2, Block 1
(Normandale Kreiser Replat).
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*CORRESPONDENCE' FROM NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS NOTED Motion
made by Member Maetzold and seconded by Member Faust acknowledging a letter
from Buell Consulting (for Nextel Communications) requesting permission to place
an antenna array on the water tower in the vicinity of Gleason Road and the
Crosstown Highway.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*PETITION RECEIVED REQUESTING A SIDEWALK BETWEEN 3911 AND 3917
WEST 50TH STREET Motion made by Member Maetzold and seconded by Member
Faust acknowledging receipt of a petition requesting a sidewalk between 3911 and
3917 West 50th Street, which has been turned over to the Engineering Department for
processing as to feasibility.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
RESOLUTION APPROVED RELATING TO CENTENNIAL LAKES TRAFFIC
AGREEMENT Attorney Gilligan explained on April 25, 1988, the City of Edina,
Bloomington and the South Edina Development Corporation entered into an agreement
to mitigate traffic in association with the Centennial Lakes Development. Analysts, Inc.,
one tenant of the development has asked clarification that the Agreement would only
apply to the office buildings within the South Edina, Development site. The Agreement
does not apply to the medical building.
Following a brief discussion, Member Maetzold introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
RELATING TO CENTENNIAL LAKES TRAFFIC AGREEMENT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the
"City"), as follows:
Page 10
A
Minutes/Edina City Council/April 6,1998
1. The City, the City of Bloomington ( "Bloomington ") and South Edina
Development Corporation ( "SED ") have entered into an Agreement dated April 25,
1988 (the "Traffic Agreement ") with respect to vehicular traffic mitigation measures
to be undertaken in connection with the development of office buildings in the
Centennial Lakes development. The parties to the Agreement wish to clarify that the
Agreement only applies to office buildings in the SED Project Site, as defined in the
Agreement, which are located south of West 76th Street.
2. Edina specifically acknowledges that the Agreement only applies to office
buildings in the SED Project Site which are located south of West 76th Street, and
agrees that such acknowledgment may be relied upon by Bloomington, SED and any
other owner of property in the area of the SED Project Site. Member Faust seconded
the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Resolution adopted.
CITY MANAGER TENDERS RETIREMENT/RESIGNATION Manager Rosland read
his written resignation dated April 6, 1998, and asked for acceptance and approval from
the Mayor and City Council:
"On the first of May, I start my 41St year with the City of Edina. Prior to starting in 1958
full time, I worked part -time as I was completing my education upon returning from
the service. My career here obviously has been long and hopefully fruitful.
With this said, I would like to announce my retirement as of October 31, 1998. I may
extend to December 31St, depending upon certain retirement decisions I need to make.
However, I should be able to let you know in a short time which date it will be.
I certainly enjoyed my working challenges here at the City of Edina. My interest in the
Park and Recreation field was my major focus for the first 20 years, at which time I had
opportunities to develop many facilities—from golf courses to art centers to historical
Tupa Park. I have spent the last 20 years in Administration where there were many
other things I had the opportunity to develop and accomplish.
However, what I believe is the most important thing I accomplished is the hiring of the
people who really work hard to make this City what it is —people with a twinkle in
their eyes. Some of you have heard me say this before, but I believe it is true. If I have a
legacy, it is the people who I leave behind to continue what I believe is the good work
they have already done in this City. I personally want to thank you and your
predecessors for the opportunity I have had to serve the City of Edina."
Mayor Smith, on behalf of the Council, reluctantly accepted the retirement/ resignation
of City Manager Rosland and thanked him for his numerous years of service to the
citizens of Edina.
Page 11
Minutes/Edina City Council/April 6,1998
CLAIMS PAID Member Maetzold made a motion to approve payment of the
following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated April 1, 1998, and
consisting of 44 pages: General Fund $2,275,841.56; C.D.B.G. $9,345.50;
Communications $41,963.97, Working Capital $39,047.79; Art Center $14,247.63; Golf
Dome Fund $17,718.67, Swimming Pool Fund $962.37; Golf Course Fund $119,233.81;
Ice Arena Fund $8,162.67, Edinborough/Centennial Lakes $26,958.45; Utility Fund
$317,576.11; Storm Sewer Utility Fund $1,170.49; Recycling Program $152,368.12;
Liquor Dispensary Fund $248,253.07, Construction Fund $4,849.53; Park Bond Fund
$38,610.73; IMP Bond Redemption #2 $1,500.00; I -494 Commission $2,834.54; TOTAL
$3,320,645.01. Member Kelly seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Motion carried.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Smith declared the
meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
City Clerk
Page 12
11
o e t4
Cn
REPORPRECOM M EN DATION
To: Mayor & City Council Agenda Item # II. A.
From: Francis J. Hoffmart /4 Consent ❑
City Engineer Information Only ❑
Date: April 20, 1998 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA
Subject: Public Hearing: ® To Council
Action ®Motion
Sidewalk Improvement S -75
(Maple Road) ® Resolution
❑ Ordinance
❑ Discussion
Recommendation:
If the Council determines the project to be warranted and necessary, Council shall
adopt a resolution approving Sidewalk Improvement S -75 and authorize plans and
specifications to be completed and bids taken.
Info /Background:
The City has received a petitioned by residents along Maple Road to construct
sidewalks from West 501h Street to West 48`h Street. Attached are two sketches
showing the proposed sidewalk.
A memo addressing the traffic issues along Maple Road by SRF Consulting Group is
attached to this report.
Items that Council should have received prior to this report are Feasibility Study,
Resident Letter No. 1 & 1a, and Neighborhood Information Packet. Correspondence
received by staff was attached to the Feasibility Study. Any correspondence received
since then is attached to this report. The Notice of Public Hearing and Resident Letter
No. 2 is also attached to this report.
Staff analyzed the petition and feels that the sidewalks are constructable from an
engineering standpoint. Staff also feels that the volume of traffic along Maple Road
justifies separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic. A neighborhood survey indicates
one -third of the residents supporting the project.
The estimated project cost is $79,600 which would be funded by a special assessment
of approximately $2,000 per assessable lot along Maple Road.
wc
4800 nI
I. _j.
Ir
4802
Em CDC. cm
M. M
4804
4808
4812
EEO, CM SUM _
I
I
I
,
wc
4800 nI
I. _j.
Ir
4802
Em CDC. cm
M. M
4804
4808
em M
4832
4836 ?j
iFICE !r
CM
ML
115
k il-RAIL EOO
�82F,
82°
I �
I
Ewa naa
I p0. F� ROOM
Q. I
4835
#4716.
10 _ 5®'
PROPOSED 5'
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
- MATCH LINE_
EID COI[ O/I7E0 _ _
L'I� - - - -- W. 49TH ST.
I
i
r ,
4812
EEO, CM SUM _
ew.M
4816
rENe[
0
4820 '
W
em M
4824
Q
ew.M
4828
em M
4832
4836 ?j
iFICE !r
CM
ML
115
k il-RAIL EOO
�82F,
82°
I �
I
Ewa naa
I p0. F� ROOM
Q. I
4835
#4716.
10 _ 5®'
PROPOSED 5'
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
- MATCH LINE_
EID COI[ O/I7E0 _ _
L'I� - - - -- W. 49TH ST.
I
i
r ,
ML
4836
cveea
4900 —
4936
I
I
f p 8001
4835
41
I
I
I
11
1 1
I
I
I
'I
I
1
I�
I
I
I
1
i
ocol 4901
OC 00. ewt[ RO01
49 5
O- I6" BOOB
4909
-
- I- ROOR
4915
2LOS I611Yfe FLOOR
4917
WOl BOOB
4921
1 OOLOa
I
4925
49 2Y9
�� Iwre BOOB
-
LOA. — I— RBOu
4933
Ewa
W.50TH ST.
MATCH LINE
W 49TH ST.
PROPOSED 5'
CONCRETE sico x
N
1" _ 5®'
7-BMHIRfS11
ki
8001
COIC.00
4904 —
B
euucB
i0°' WLOa
4908
�I'�' cocoa
4912
LJJ
awn
R0°°
COL Ot
—J
4916 s
FLOM
4920
RAFcvL. a
4924
&tQ"
ROB COIL OI.
4926
7
""*
80011
BI I.OR
I
4932
4936
I
I
f p 8001
4835
41
I
I
I
11
1 1
I
I
I
'I
I
1
I�
I
I
I
1
i
ocol 4901
OC 00. ewt[ RO01
49 5
O- I6" BOOB
4909
-
- I- ROOR
4915
2LOS I611Yfe FLOOR
4917
WOl BOOB
4921
1 OOLOa
I
4925
49 2Y9
�� Iwre BOOB
-
LOA. — I— RBOu
4933
Ewa
W.50TH ST.
MATCH LINE
W 49TH ST.
PROPOSED 5'
CONCRETE sico x
N
1" _ 5®'
7-BMHIRfS11
ki
C ON.SULTING GROUP, INC.
Transportation • Civil • Structural ■ Environmental • Planning • Traffic ■ Landscape Architecture • Parking
SRF No. 0983003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Traffic Safety Committee, City of Edina
FROM: Dennis R. Eyler, P.E., Principal
Jeff Bednar, Senior Traffic Engineer Specialist
DATE: April 16, 1998
SUBJECT: MAPLE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ISSUES
As the traffic safety committee has requested we have completed a review of the subject
Maple Road neighborhood traffic issues and other available information related to these
issues including the AD HOC Maple Road Study Committee Survey of the residents.
Based on this review the following comments and recommendations are offered for your
consideration:
Based on traffic counts completed by the City in February 1997 it is estimated that the
average daily traffic volume on Maple Road north of 500s Street is 1,000 vehicles per
day. According to the Metropolitan Council's Functional Classification System for
Streets and Highways, 1,000 vehicles per day is the upper limit for local streets.
Beyond 1,000 vehicles per day the street would fall into the collector street
classification. Recent information related to daily traffic volumes on local residential
streets indicates that neighborhood residents begin to feel uncomfortable when daily
traffic volumes on their street reach 500 vehicles per day or more.
In an effort to identify the amount of "through" traffic using Maple Road, the City
completed a sample license plate survey on Maple Road north of 50' Street during
both the morning and afternoon peak periods in late January and early February 1998.
From this data there appears to be significantly more "through" traffic during the
afternoon peak periods. This is typical of "through" traffic in other neighborhoods
that have been studied throughout the City. This "through" traffic is most likely
"cutting" through the Maple Road neighborhood in order to avoid the higher level of
congestion and delay in the France Avenue and West 50`s Street area that occurs
during the afternoon peak periods.
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447 -4443
Telephone (612) 475 -0010 ■ Fax (612) 475 -2429 ■ http://www.srfconsulting.com
An Equal Opportunity Employer
T r a f f i c Safety Committee - 2 - April 16, 1998
• Based on this sample license plate survey it is estimated that there could be between
20 to 35 percent "through" traffic within the total traffic volume present on Maple
Road. Assuming the City was able to take effective action to eliminate all of this
"through" traffic, there would continue to be as much as 650 to 800 vehicle trips per
day on Maple Road. This would also be a daily traffic volume that the neighborhood
residents could be uncomfortable with.
• The travel shed that Maple Road serves (the area south of Sunnyside Road, west of
France Avenue, north of 50th Street and east of Arden Avenue) contains over
125 homes. At an average of 14 trips per day per household (typical to this area of
Edina) this travel shed would generate over 1,750 daily vehicle trip ends. This
condition is what would keep the daily traffic volume on Maple Road at higher levels
even if the "through" traffic is reduced.
• The level of "through" traffic on Maple Road is similar to other neighborhoods in
Edina which have also been studied. Neighborhoods such as: Tracy Avenue between
West 66'b Street and West 70`h Street, Interlachen Hills and Parkwood Knolls have
similar levels of "through" traffic volumes that amount to 200 to 400 "through"
vehicles per day. To date the City has not taken any significant actions in these
neighborhoods. The exception to this is the Country Club neighborhood where the
"through" traffic volume was "thousands" of vehicles per day. In this exceptional
case the City did take remedial action, not so much to reduce or eliminate the
"through" traffic but more to redistribute it to more streets in an effort to share the
burden.
• In the case of the Maple Road neighborhood, as well as the Country Club
neighborhood, the high level of congestion and delay in the area of West 50`h Street
and France Avenue is the cause of the neighborhood "through" traffic. Travel time
runs through the study area during the afternoon peak period indicate that it is, on the
average, 90 seconds faster to cut - through the neighborhood than to use the
50' Street/France Avenue area. As was found in the Country Club neighborhood the
City couldn't install enough additional stop signs or speed humps on Maple Road to
make up for that kind of travel time advantage. One stop sign increases travel time by
12 -15 seconds if the driver fully stops. To increase the travel time through the
neighborhood enough to make the travel time the same on each route would take
six additional stops, more if the route through the area of 50' Street and
France Avenue was to be fast enough to pull the "through" traffic out of the
neighborhood. There are only four intersections along the Maple Road/48" Street
route. Speed humps offer even less of an increase in travel time and would therefore
not be effective in reducing "through" traffic.
Traffic Safety Committee - 3 - April 16, 1998
• Speed humps can be effective in reducing speeds in the immediate area of the hump
(100 to 200 feet from the hump). However, upon review of the Maple Road speed
samples collected by the City, the 85' percentile speed was found to be 29 mph. This
indicates that a speeding problem does not exist on Maple Road. If the 85' percentile
speed was significantly over 30 mph, a speeding problem would be indicated. But
since 15 percent of drivers will exceed the posted speed limit or safe speed,
irrespective of attempts to lower their speeds by any means, an 85th percentile. speed
of 30 mph or less is considered acceptable in a 3.0 mph zone.
• Speed humps are not considered a low cost action. In order to construct a speed
hump that; follows traffic safety guidelines, is effective in reducing speeds to 15 to
20 mph, does not impede street surface drainage, is easily cleared of snow and ice and
is attractive enough to place in a neighborhood setting, the City/neighborhood would
need to spend between $10,000 415,000 for each speed hump needed. And in order
to be effective in reducing overall speeds these humps would need to be installed 'at
intervals of 500 to 600 feet. At least three to maybe four speed humps would be
needed on Maple Road between 50'b Street and 48' Street to be effective in reducing
the higher vehicle speeds. Estimated cost, $30,000 to $60,000.
• Signs such as "Local Traffic Only" or "No Through Traffic" cannot be enforced by
the City since Maple Road is a public street. It would be unlawful for the City to
exclude anyone from using this publicly operated and maintained street.
1 • Banning the eastbound to northbound left -turn during the peak periods at Maple Road
and 50' Street could help reduce the "through" traffic, but only in direct proportion to
the level of enforcement of that, turn restriction. Additionally, it would be unlawful
for the City to selectively enforce this turn restriction by enforcing the ban for non -
residents but allowing the residents to make the banned turn., The "No Left Turn"
sign means 'mac " left turns. This turn restriction would result in. a significant
inconvenience for many of the neighborhood residents.
• The most effective actions to reduce "through" traffic in the neighborhood would
include street closures, cul -de -sacs and traffic diverters. However, once the "through"
traffic is gone what remains is the significant inconvenience to many of the
neighborhood residents who now have a restricted freedom of movement and for
many trips are forced to use the highly congested area of 50' Street and
France Avenue. Should these actions then be reversed, it would not take long for the
"through" traffic to find its way back into the neighborhood.
Traffic Safety Committee - 4 - April 16, 1998
• Probably the best solution to the Maple Road neighborhood "through" traffic problem
would be to improve traffic operations in the area of 50' Street and France Avenue in
order reduce the high level of congestion and delay. However, the streetscape theme
and on -street parking in the area would need to be compromised in order to add traffic
lanes, because only adding lanes in this area will result insignificant improvement.
There maybe some minor improvements that could be made to the traffic signal
system operation such as a leading southbound left -turn phase at 50t, Street and
France Avenue, but this would only result in a minor traffic operations improvement.
Peak period on -street parking restrictions could also be considered.
• The Edina City staff is currently engaged in discussions with the City of Minneapolis
staff related to traffic signal system interconnect between France Avenue and
Halifax Avenue on 50'' Street. This system interconnect could improve traffic
operations on 50' Street substantially. This improvement would include replacement
of the traffic signal control hardware at both intersections along with a hardwire
twisted pair interconnect.
• A public street, no matter what traffic volume or speed level is present, should never
be characterized or considered as a "safe" environment for children to play or for
older /senior residents to walk within or adjacent to. Mixing children (especially at
play) and older /senior residents with moving vehicles is an inherently dangerous
condition. It can not be recommended that the City take any action that could be
interpreted as an endorsement of this interaction between playing children/older/
senior residents and vehicular traffic on a public street.
• The best action that can be taken to protect children and other pedestrians, is to
separate them from the vehicular traffic. This can be done by constructing sidewalks
and/or trails separated from the roadway, and/or by providing close parent or adult
caretaker supervision whenever these groups are in close proximity to or within the
roadway.
:1
April 16, 1998
To: Fran Hoffinan and Wayne Houle
City of Edina
From: Wayiand Eda Kostroski
RE: Maple Road
cc: Mayor Glenn Smith
Council Member Nan Faust
Council Member Mike Kelly
Council Member Dennis Maetzold
Council Member Jim Hovland
I am wTiting in response to your recent letter and notice of the issues of sidewalks and
curbs on Maple Road. As a resident of Maple Road, I certainly would like to let you
know of the position that my wife and I hold on the issues. However, since I will be out
of town on April 20, and my wife, Eda, has a previous commitment that cannot be
changed, I thought it best to drop you a quick line.
First of all, thank you to you and your team for taking such a professional and thoughtful
look at the concerns of the residents of the block. Although all will obviously not be in
agreement with any one set of decisions on future action, it appears that the process was
handled well by you and your City of Edina associates. Thanks.
As I've followed the process, it appears to me that all concerns about solutions have
focused on four areas: 1.) safety and traffic, 2.) aesthetics of the two blocks, 3.) health of
the trees and yards, and 4.) cost and return on investment as it relates to property value.
My comments will relate to the above.
I strongly support the installation of curbs on Maple Road, and should that action be part
of the plan, would strongly support the installation of sidewalks.
Traffic and safety. There is little doubt in my mind that simply adjusting speeds and
parking will not have a significant enough effect on the safety of adults and children on
Maple Road. Simply put, sidewalks get pedestrians off the road, and curbs provide
proper demarcation of where traffic and parking should be. Also, with the street lighting
being so poor, the continued risk of pedestrians walking on the road is, in my opinion, an
accident waiting to happen.
Aesthetics. Curbs need to be installed to properly define the street and yard separation,
and in order that the 4800 block be consistent with the look of the 4900 block. At
present, to add to the sloppy look, part of the 4800 block has curb, some of it in good
shape, some not, and most of the rest has none at all.
Sidewalks add to the fmished look of a neighborhood, and in the case of Maple Road,
would even accentuate the beauty of the trees and yards.
It
Fran Hoffman and Wayne Houle
April 16, 1998
Page 2
Health of trees and yards. I have read the report circulated that was intended to point
out the potential damage that sidewalks would do to the trees. While I am not
knowledgeable enough to dispute any specific points of that report, I would venture to
say that much of it is speculative. What is obvious to me is that I can't believe that
exposed roots facing the streets (unprotected from road salt, exhaust, etc.) can be
beneficial to the health of any tree. Curbing is important to frame in the exposed roots of
a number of trees in the 4800 block (see enclosed photo.) Also, having water flow freely
and directly into the yards without a curb to direct it away, has proven to destroy a
number of lawns over the past several years.
Sidewalks have been installed in any number of various situations in the past. I trust that
the procedure and system is in place to determine the best ways to ensure the most likely
future health of tree roots that may be in the proposed sidewalk installation pathways.
Cost and return. I have had to replace my front lawn three times in the ten years that we
have lived here. Just last summer, when it was beginning to recover again, the July rains
flooded the front yard with street water and forced me to re -sod the entire yard as well as
to install drain tiles for flooding. It is a far better investment to install proper curbing in
order to ensure the efficient distribution of excess water than it is to simply leave it the
way it is.
Curbing is also the first step to increasing the visual and practical value of our homes.
(A rumor has also surfaced that there may be a plan in the making to route /pipe street
water from Arden down to Maple Road - is that true ?) Sidewalks are an inexpensive
investment to make in the look of the area, and in my opinion, an excellent return on
property value. I would submit that, to any potential homebuyer, having curbs and
sidewalks is an immediate plus in the area of perceived value of any residential property.
I also believe that the finance plan is reasonable as presented.
In conclusion, my wife and I are in strong support of curbs, and provided that they are the
first part of the plan, are in strong support of sidewalks as well. Doing only the latter -
given the disruption to the block and the already available construction resources - would
be a poor use of time and funds. Do the entire job once and do it well.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Should there be any specific questions or
comments that you may have for us, please don't hesitate to call 922 -7952.
Good luck with the rest of the process.
,._ - y' 1 �ri � � +4, '� �rlf�' * �� '.�� far, ����� �11` f, !, •��Y`
.r � •� iClr � � l \a++ ��r�� ��.Ir { {}l��l.f5{�,L,�e1�cd�; ti,_ t��nyj,�'
`f ; � ;�ry�S+� • r�1 y: t 1 ,� - )r7�ia ti f ' t 1 ", r � �� . ,
�+''s •? �,y a� � , _�' )+) i 'ry�L )t fig, . r x� (, ,�: 7 r.
4. 5
- � ' r 1�I'' �3I�1•_y�ri �µy� �� w ,�`y'r`"r'� r t x: � �1� is �C - + y.•�q'
Z�� `•, l F 4-. yN'4"' } q # ✓ti',� �L}+I y�,7 � r .f h �l� Y: f I .1' - •'. l jam. {' �a
r t i � ! � 4f1� �.� 4 f4.• �t1 + � � � ,,� 'lr" �PO 1„ ! t -� ! �4:� '\��
,Jr 4 r ���x .a,s ,� • 2+' r�•`:� '1 a �,'1�'V,:' } -+'�,�1iP it. a�'i� �tje + `� ''
� 7k y �a �•
rk f r 741" ai►"S r a •-} �!!y'✓ i L"Ti
fj
• rte, 5� t 1'�i +1�1 ±" t.' .T.%.x,,�,,a. �='��M�el' +! ` 1 �'
r a rti• ,Pi y 4�1 +y`y�',,
T
� > n�f�';�! � � y� • +�f sN � yr +'+ya=a .}, r
:..
Michael W. Martin . Edina, Maple 5424
9265172
P
rn 11
8 April 1998
Wayne Houle
Assistant City Engineer
City of Edina
4801 West 501' St.
Edina MN. 55424 -1394
Dear Wayne:
Enclosed is an opinion regarding the effects of sidewalk construction on the trees along Maple road
completed by Mark Stennes of Top Notch Tree care. Based on Mark's expertise and credentials
(enclosed), I believe this to be an objective opinion regarding this matter. Please take the time to review
this opinion prior to the Maple Road sidewalk hearing scheduled for the 201 of April
Sincerely,
Michael W. Martin
cc: Glenn Smith
City Council Members
w
7M1C cArbodsas of
Notch Treecare
"We speak for the trees"
7 April 1998
Mike Martin
Maple Road Ad Hoc Committee
4905 Maple Road
Edina MN 55424
Re: Effects of sidewalk construction on mature boulevard trees
Dear Mike:
The purpose of this communication is to provide a context within which you can frame your
discussions about the pros and cons of building a new sidewalk in front of the homes on Maple
Road. In keeping with our motto, "We speak for the trees," the following discussion is intended
to help guide you through the decision - making process. As I see it, there are two key issues.
One is the potential effects on tree vitality, viability and long -term health. The other is
community safety and the stability of mature trees in the face of Mother Nature's summer winds.
With respect to tree health and vitality, it is important to understand and appreciate the delicate
nature of your trees' non -woody root systems. Mature trees do have deep and massive woody
roots which are required for support, but the parts that absorb water and mineral nutritional
elements are fine, delicate, non -woody and concentrated near the surface. They are often
intimately entangled with the roots of your turf grass. It is important to keep this fact in mind
when building, remodeling, or otherwise working on or in the soil that nourishes and supports
your trees. Compaction of the soil or changes in grade which either cover (then suffocate) or
effectively remove fine, non -woody roots, can have disastrous consequences for your trees.
If I correctly understand sidewalk engineering and specifications, the concrete itself must be at
least four if not six inches thick. For long -term stability and to reduce cracking due to frost .
heave, there must also be a foundation of compacted material of some kind. There is in effect a
soil volume ten to 12 inches deep and six feet wide that must removed for installation of the
sidewalk., Since the trees will be between the street and the new sidewalk, all of the roots that
are now where the sidewalk will be will be removed or destroyed. Also, the vast bulk of those
on the other side of the sidewalk will be effectively severed from their connections with the
trees. Large woody surface roots where the sidewalk will be are obvious in many places. Plenty
more exist just below the surface. If you are around when the existing soil is excavated, you will
see a thick mat of woody and non -woody cut roots on both sides of the excavation.
ISA Certified Arborists 6450 Oxford St. St. Louis Park MN 55426 ♦ (612) 922 -3239 fx: 922 -4311
I do not have a crystal ball and cannot point to the trees that will either survive or succumb to the
insults that will result from installation of the proposed sidewalk, but you can bet that the insult
will be severe. The trees that have good vitality and large amounts of stored energy may be able
to struggle through and generate enough new roots to survive. I am reasonably certain that some
will not make it and that all will suffer over time. You can expect weaker color, thinner
canopies, dieback at the top of many trees, and a generally enhanced susceptibility to normally
non - aggressive pests.
With respect to stability and safety in heavy winds, it is reasonable to expect that the trees'
attachments to the ground will be compromised. When large, woody, structural support roots are
removed there is a greater probability for windthrow, particularly in this case for the trees on the
west side of the street. The sidewalk will be close enough to these trees so that large, woody
support roots will have to be severed and removed.
Being a bonafide "treehugger," it's hard to be completely objective, but an objective look at the
economics seems to be appropriate. There is no doubt that safe, healthy, mature trees add
significantly to both aesthetic charm and property values. Trees which are dying or in a state of
decline are not ornamental assets, and can be a significant liabilities, both economically and from
a safety point of view. A new sidewalk in front of the homes on Maple is not likely to add
significantly to property values.
Thank you very much for your interest in my point of view. If you have questions or need more
information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Mark =8te es
BS•For�stry
ant Pathology
I
1VIRRIfALI EN STENNES
462 Old Highway 8 SW
New Brighton MN 55112 -7707
Office: 612 - 922 -3239
Home: 612 - 636 -1386
Educational Background
1981 Master of Science, Plant Pathology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul
Minor: Statistics
1975 Bachelor of Science with High Distinction, Forest Science, University of Minnesota,
St. Paul. Yj Sigma Pi
1969 Diploma, Bemidji High School, Bemidji, Minnesota
Employment Experience
May 1996 —present
Plant Pathologist and Consulting Arborist. Top Notch Treecare. 6450 Oxford Street, St. Louis
Park, MN. 55426.
Responsible for the management and administration of the biological aspects of a tree health care
and maintenance service. Design and implement a pest management program which includes
and encourages cultural as well as chemical disease and insect control measures. Consultation
and sales, education and training of staff and clientele, preparation of fact sheets and promotional
literature. Design and implement mineral nutritional aspects of an ornamental plant health care
program. Research and document efficacy of treatment programs, including empirical studies of
the efficacy of systemic fungicides used for the control of Dutch elm disease and oak wilt.
May 1992 — April 1996
Plant Pathologist and Consulting Arborist. Rainbow Tree Co., Inc. 5105 West 35`' Street, St.
Louis Park, MN. 55416.
Consultation and sales, staff and client education, research.
1981 -1992
Arborist, Plant Pathologist, President, 34% owner. Stennes Shade Tree, Inc. 464 Old Highway
8 SW. New Brighton, MN. 55112 -7707.
Administration, sales, marketing, program design and implementation, research, education.
w
1976-1981
Graduate Research Assistant. University of Minnesota, Department of Plant Pathology, St. Paul,
MN. 55108
Screened for behavioral characteristics, two water soluble benzimidazole systemic fungicides
injected into mature American elms for the purpose of Dutch elm disease control. Performed
thousands of bioassays to assess uniformity of chemical distribution in treated trees as it varied
with the chemical used, injection technique, dosage and dilution rates, and the passage of time.
Performed challenge inoculations of treated mature American elms with Ophiostoma novo -ulmi
to determine prophylactic effectiveness. Determined that Arbotect 20 -S, when root flare injected
at higher than label rates, was effective as a preventive treatment for at least two growing
seasons. This research resulted in a national label change and the current label specifications for
Arbotect 20 -S (thiabendazole hypophosphite). Also conducted similar, smaller scale research
with oak wilt in native oaks.
1975
Tree Inspector. City of Maplewood, Maplewood, MN 55109
Inventoried and characterized, as to composition and density, the city's urban and rural tree
population. Inspected for the occurrence of Dutch elm disease and oak wilt; marked and
condemned all diseased elms, and those oaks in the red oak group that would constitute an above
ground infection threat to the remaining population; served legal condemnation notices to
affected property owners, and prescribed root graft transmission control barriers where
appropriate. Administered and enforced prompt execution of removal contract with city's tree
removal contractor.
Other skills and interests
Competent photographer and darkroom technician. Own a large collection of color.
transparencies which illustrate a wide range of biotic, abiotic, political and social factors that
affect the health, condition and composition of the "urban forest."
Possess sound training and strong interest in plant taxonomy, plant community ecology, plant
geography and Pleistocene geology. These interests, combined with other technical education
and 17 years of field experience, have led to sound appreciation for what is and is not suitable
woody plant material for the urban forest in this part of the country.
Served as a adult educator by speaking at the Minnesota and Iowa Shade Tree Courses,
Minnesota Turf and Grounds Association meetings, Rocky Mountain Chapter International
Society of Arboriculture 1995 annual meeting, North Dakota Urban and Community Forestry
Association's 1998 annual meeting, Golf Course Superintendent meetings, Rotary Clubs, Lion's
Clubs, Optimist Clubs and neighborhood tree stewardship committee meetings. Topics included
shade tree disease management, tree maintenance, Alex Shigo's "new tree biology," and new
tree selection and planting. Traveled with the University of Minnesota Plant Management Task
Force's traveling nursery seminar in 1991 to discuss the virtues of "Our Magnificent Oaks."
2 1
Professional Affiliations, Committee Memberships, Certifications
American Phytopathological Society
International Society of Arboriculture
Minnesota Society of Arboriculture, Charter Member, current President - elect, Program and
Education Committee 91 & 92, Publicity Committee 98
National Arborist Association
Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee, Forest Health Committee
Certified Tree Inspector, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 1975 to present
Certified Pesticide Applicator, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 1981 — 1991
Publications and Thesis
Stennes, M. A. 1979. The efficacy of Arbotect 20 -S in preventing Dutch elm disease in
American elms. Abstract in Phytopathology 69:1046
Stennes, M., Baker, F. A., and French D. W. 1979. How to Inject Elms with Systemic
Fungicides. Agricultural Extension Service/University of Minnesota. Bulletin AG -FO-
0781/Revised 1984. 4 pp.
Stennes M. A. 1981. Thiabendazole hypophosphite and carbendazim phosphate as systemic
fungicides for practical Dutch elm disease control. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota, St.
Paul. 116 pp.
Stennes M. A., and French, D. W. 1987. Distribution and retention of thiabendazole
hypophosphite and carbendazim phosphate injected into mature American elms. Phytopathology
77:707 -712.
Stennes, Mark. 1993. Oak Wilt: Myths and Misunderstandings. Minnesota Horticulturist 121,
No. 6. Pp. 24 -26.
Stennes, Mark. 1997. An Invaluable, Mature Bur Oak is Loved to Death. Tree Care Industry
8(5):64.
Stennes, Mark. 1998. The Efficacy of Alamo and Arbotect 20 -S in Protecting Mature American
Elms from Artificial Inoculation with Ophiostoma novo -ulmi. J. Arboric. 24(in review).
April 1998
w
a
AA.
THE MAPLE ROAD RESIDENTS DO SEEM TO.AGREE THAT WE HAVE A HIGH
VOLUME OF TRAFFIC ON OUR STREET! HOWEVER -- PUTTING DOWN
SIDEWALKS WILL DO NOTHING TO IMPROVE THAT, AND SO FAR THIS
SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY SOLUTION BEING ADDRESSED.
WHEN WE MOVED TO MAPLE ROAD IN 1981 WE "CHOSE" TO BUY A HOME
ON A STREET WITHOUT SIDEWALK.S.WE RAISED THREE CHILDREN IN
THIS HOME AND WOULD NEVER HAVE EVEN ENTERTAINED THE THOUGHT
THAT OUR NEIGHBORS SHOULD PAY FOR OR CHANGE THEIR; LANDSCAPING
FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CHILDREN. THEY WERE TAUGHT THAT THE ROAD
WAS NOT THEIRS TO PLAY, RIDE, ROLLERPLADE ON, AND PART OF
THEIR SAFETY WAS ALSO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
THAT PARENTING THEORY SEEMS TO HAVE CHANGED WITH A HANDFUL OF
FAMILIES WHO HAVE FAIRLY RECENTLY MOVED TO MAPLE ROAD.
WHAT HAS FOR SO LONG BEEN A WONDERFULLY FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD
HAS BEEN SPLIT APART BY THIS ISSUE. WITH MAN" f OF US FEELING
THAT THIS WENT TOO FAR TOO FAST WITH ONLY A SMALL GROUP OF
RESIDENTS BEING AWARE OF A SIDEWALK P IROPOSf- L. THi: PEOPLE WHO
WERE THOUGHT TO PERHAPS NOT' WANT SIDEWALKS WERE NOT INFORMED
OF THE PETITION. THE EXPENSE OF SURVEYING THE STREET WAS
UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT A COMLETE POLLING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ONCE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE MAILED A MORE DETAILED SURVEY TO
EACH RESIDENT IT BECAME APPARENT THAT a PEOPLE WANTED
SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE 41 RES I DENTE,'. WHY WAS THIS NO -I`
A PRELIMINARY STEP IN THE PROCESS?
MOST PEOPLE ON MAPLE_ ROAD HAVE TAKEN EXCELLENT CARE OF THE
CITY CURBSIDE PROPERTY, •SPENDING MUCH MONEY TO KEEP THE ELM
TREES PROTECTED FROM DISEASE AND ADDING LANDSCAPING TO
IMPROVE THE PROPERTY.
ASIDE FROM THE CONCERN OF DAMAGE TO THE ELMS THERE IS
VIRTUALLY NOT A YARD THAT WOULD NOT LOSE SOMETHING! IN OUR
CASE IT WOULD BE SHRUBS,THE END OF GUN PAVERSTONi= DRIVEWAY &
THE INVISIBLE FENCE. SEVERAL NEIGHBORS STAND TO LOSE MUCH
MORE THAN US.
THIS SEEMS UNFAIR TO ME SO A FEW CHILDREN CNN BE TOLD TO
"PLAY ON THE SIDEWALK. THIS WOULD ONLY'CREATE A LARGER
HAZARD AS THESE CHILDREN WHO ALREADY DG NOT RESPECT THE ROAD
AND DART ACROSS WITHOUT LOOK.I NG WILL PERCEIVE THE SIDEWALK TO
BE DANGER FREE WHON IN FACT EVERONE OF US NEEDS TO PACK
ACROSS THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK. TO GET TO THE STREET.
I HOPE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WILL STUDY THE NEIGHBORHOODi
SURVEY WHEN MAKING THEIR DECISION. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY
WERE OPPOSED TO SIDEWALKS! - -TO PLACE THEM 10 FEET PLUS INSIDE
THE CURBLINE REMOVES A GOOD HALF OF MOST FRONT YARDS.
IF THIS SHOULD HAPPEN, NO LONGER WILL I PAY TO TREAT MY ELM
(ALREADY I HAVE SPENT $2000.00.) NOR WILL 1 MAINTAIN THE CITY
PROPERTY AT .MY EXPENSE AND TIME. I EXPECT 1 WILL NOT BE ALONE
IN THAT FEELING!
I FEEL SAD FOR MY STREET - -AFTER LIVING HERE FOR 17 YEARS IT
WILL NEVER BE THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THE
SIDEWALK ISSUE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRUST HAS BEEN LOST AND CITY
HALL INVOLVEMENT IS BEING STRONGLY G!UESTIOhdtO.
SINCERELY.
BARBARA & DAVID t-UBMAN
April 8, 1998 City of Edina
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT NO. S -75
MAPLE ROAD FROM W. 50TH STREET TO W. 48TH STREET & TOWNES ROAD
The Edina City Council will meet at the Edina City Hall, on Monday, April 20, 1998 at 7:00 PM, to hold a
Public Hearing on the construction of sidewalks along both sides of Maple Road from W. 5Vh Street to W.
48`h Street & Townes Road. This hearing is being conducted under the authority- granted by Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429.
This hearing has been called as a result of a petition from 15 residents in the neighborhood who walk along
Maple Road and would like to see it become a safer street for all pedestrians. The estimated project cost is
$27,700. The cost of the project will be funded by special assessment. The estimated cost per assessable
lot is $2,000 and could be divided over a ten year period with interest accumulating on the unpaid balance.
Under current City policy, maintenance (snow removal) of the sidewalk will be the responsibility of the
homeowner.
The sidewalk is proposed to be five feet wide and constructed of concrete. The alignment will be adjacent
to right -of -way line and will vary slightly to protect existing property features to the greatest extent possible.
The proposed project would be constructed in 1998, with the assessment hearing occurring in late
September or early October.
The area proposed to be assessed the cost of the proposed improvement includes:
Lot 1 and E 28 Y2 Ft of Lot 2, E 45 Ft of Lot 19 and W 45 Ft of Lot 2, Lot 11 and S 30 Ft of Lot 12, Lot 13
and N 30 Ft of Lot 12, Lots 14 thru 18, and Lot 20 and W 28 % Ft of Lot 19, Blk 2; Lots 1 thru 11 and N 4
6/10 Ft of Lot 12, S 57 4/10 Ft of Lot 12 and N 4 6/10 Ft of Lot 13, S 57 4/10 Ft of Lot 13 and N 3 1/10 Ft of
Lot 14, S 58 90/100 Ft of Lot 14, and Lots 15 thru 21, Blk 3; Lots 1 thru 6, N 3 Ft of Lot 7, S 55 Ft of Lot 7,
Lot 8 and 9, Blk 4, "South White Oaks Addition "; Lot 39, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172; Lots 33 and 34,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 319; and Lot 16, White Oaks.
Your receipt of this notice is an indication that Property whose ownership is listed to you is among those
properties which are considered to be benefited by the improvement.
Any inquiries, comments and /or suggestions you may have regarding this improvement may be forwarded
to the City Council or Engineering Department prior to the hearing or presented at-the hearing itself. If you
desire additional information, please call Wayne Houle at 826 -0443 between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM,
Monday through Friday.
The City Council can authorize the proposed project immediately upon the close of the hearing.
Thank you,
Francis J. Hoffman, E.
Director of Public Works and City Engineer
WH /clf
City Hall (612) 927 -8861
1801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461
% 91r1A. A,Ir
118 e I
April 3, 1998 City of Edina
Maple Road Area Residents
Edina, MN
Re: Resident Letter No. 2
Public Hearing Update
Maple Road Sidewalk Improvements
City of Edina
Dear Resident:
The week of April 6 you will receive the official notice of a public hearing for sidewalk
improvements along Maple Road. This meeting will be held at the Edina City Council
Chambers on Monday, April 20 at 7:00 PM. The process for a petitioned project with special
assessment proceedings is as follows:
./ Initiation of improvement project by Council (staff) or by petition.
./ Feasibility Report prepared and accepted with Council setting hearing date usually one
or two Council meetings prior to the Public Hearing
❑ Ten days notice is sent to affected property owners. Also, legal notice is in the paper
(Edina Sun) prior to the hearing.
• Public hearing is conducted.
• Ordering of improvement project requires only majority of Council if petitioned by
residents (normally 3 votes of 5) or 4 of 5 Council votes if project is not initiated by
residents.
• Levy of special assessments is usually held at the completion of the project. The
special assessment, in essence, is levying a cost to the assessed property which
reflects local improvement value on specific property.
As you will recall a neighborhood meeting was held on January 21 to discuss the sidewalk
improvements along Maple Road. A neighborhood survey was routed to all residents of Maple
Road. Results of this survey are on the back -side of this letter. I have also received many
letters from residents regarding this project. These letters will be included with my report to
council.
Please contact me at 826 -0443 if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Wayne D. Houle, PE
Assistant City Engineer
City Hall (612) 927 -8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461
f
J .a
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
OF
MAPLE ROAD SIDEWALK SURVEY
CITY OF EDINA
The following is a summary of the results from the Maple Road Sidewalk Survey.
TRAFFIC ISSUES:
1. Do you feel there is a traffic problem on Maple Road ? ........................31 yes 4 no
2. Is this traffic problem related to:
• Increased volume of vehicles ? ............................. 33 yes 3 no
• Increased speed of vehicles? .. .............................29 yes 6 no
• Other:
SIDEWALK ISSUES:
1. Do you feel sidewalks would increase the safety of pedestrians ? ..................18 yes 15 no
2. Do you feel sidewalks would increase the value of homes along Maple Road ?9 yes 27 no
3. Do you support the installation of sidewalks along Maple Road ? ...................13 yes 22 no
• Do you agree to a be assessed for this cost? .......... 13 yes 22 no
4. Do you support a sidewalk being constructed:
• Adjacent to edge of roadway? ..............................8 yes 24 no
• 10 to 15 feet from roadway creating a boulevard? .... 9 yes 25 no
ROADWAY ISSUES:
1. Do you feel there is a storm water problem on Maple Road ? .........................13 yes 20 no
2. Does your home have a drain tile / sump pump system? .............................12 yes 22 no
3. Do you support the installation of curb & gutter north of West 49"
Street along Maple Road? ..................................... ............................... 10 yes 22 no
4. Do you support a roadway improvement project? .......... .............................10 yes 21 no
(Roadway improvement includes repaving the roadway with possible
addition / reconstruction of curb and gutter.)
• Do you agree to a be assessed for this cost? .......... 9 yes 22 no
•. Do you support a reduction of on- street parking?..... 23 yes 10 no
.
!I
°Y a � " � 0 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
Agenda Item #
IL B.
From: Francis J. Hoffman id
Consent
❑
City Engineer
Information Only
❑
Date: April 20, 1998
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
®
To Council
Subject: Public Hearing:
Action
®
Motion
Wooddale Glen Street
® Resolution
Resurfacing Imp. A -183 &
El Ordinance
Wooddale Glen Storm
Sewer Imp. STS -252.
El
Discussion
Recommendation:
If the Council determines the project to be warranted and necessary, Council shall
adopt a resolution approving Wooddale Glen Street Resurfacing Imp. A -183 &
Wooddale Glen Storm Sewer Imp. STS -252, authorize plans and specifications to be
completed and bids taken.
Info /Background:
The City has received a petitioned by residents along Wooddale Glen to resurface the
street and improve the existing storm sewer. The proposed project is to reconstruct
Wooddale Glen from Wooddale Avenue to the end of the cul -de -sac along with the
addition of a catch basin located at the easterly end of the project.
Staff analyzed the petition and feels that the project is feasible from an engineering
standpoint.
The Feasibility Study was submitted to Council on April 6. 1 have attached a copy of
this Feasibility Study along with Notice of Public Hearing, and Resident Letter No. 1 to
this report.
The estimated project cost is $27,700. Funding for this project would be from a special
assessment of approximately $4,900 per assessable lot along Wooddale Glen.
o� e vi �a FEASIBILITY STUDY
En
•��,�• CITY OF EDINA
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS & STREET RESURFACING
WOODDALE GLEN
MARCH 9, 1998
LOCATION: Wooddale Glen from Wooddale Avenue to end of cul -de -sac.
INNITIATION & ISSUES: This project was initiated by a petition from six of the seven homes
adjacent to Wooddale Glen. The petition requested the City to
investigate the storm sewer for this street along with analyzing
costs to resurface the street. One of the petitioners has informed us
that drainage for this street is insufficient due to the poor condition
of pavement:
EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing roadway consists of a 28 foot to 40 foot wide
bituminous rural section. The pavement is in relatively poor
condition with numerous patches throughout. This roadway
appears to be at the end of its useful life; overlaying or reclaiming
this pavement would not be feasible. Due to the poor condition of
the pavement some surface water does not drain to the catchbasin
located at the easterly end of the cul -de -sac.
Pavement condition on Wooddale Glen
IMPROVEMENT: Improve storm sewer at easterly end of Wooddale Glen and
reconstruct Wooddale Glen. This reconstruction would involve
removing the existing bituminous roadway surface, regrade the
roadway, and replace with 3" of bituminous over 8" aggregate base.
Minimal disturbance would occur to the driveways adjacent to the
roadway. The roadway would be replaced with a uniform 28 foot
wide roadway. The end of the cul -de -sac will include a 70 foot
diameter half circle to accommodate turning movements of
vehicles. Storm sewer improvements include adding a catchbasin
at the easterly end of the project. The addition of this catchbasin
will provide additional capacity to the existing system and help
Feasibility Study
Wooddale Glen
March 9, 1998
Page 2
prevent water from draining onto the property of 5119 Wooddale
Glen. See attached sketch for proposed improvements.
RIGHT -OF -WAY: Adequate right -of -way exists.
FEASIBILITY: This project is feasible from an engineering / city standpoint.
EASEMENTS: No additional easements will be required.
COMPLETION: 1998 Construction Season (June- August)
ASSESSMENTS: A special assessment of approximately $4,900 per assessable lot
will be levied against the residents along Wooddale Glen. The
residences of 4431 and 4429 West 52nd Street abuts the Wooddale
Glen with their rear yards, therefore these residences would be
assessed 1/3 of the per unit cost.
PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated construction cost is $22,400. The
estimated construction cost does not include $3,400 of storm sewer
upgrades. Storm sewer upgrades will be funded through the
stormwater utility fund. The estimated project cost is $27,700,
which includes indirect costs of 22.5 %, which includes
engineering, clerical, and finance costs. Funding for the entire
project will be from a combination of special assessment ($27,700)
and stormwater utility ($3,400). See attached summary of the
Project Cost Estimate.
PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule is feasible from an Engineering standpoint:
Council Orders Public Hearing ......................March 16, 1998
Receive Feasiblity Report ...... ..........................April 6, 1998
Public Hearing ....................... .......................April20, 1998
Bid Opening .................... ............................May 28, 1998
Award Contract .................. ...........................June 1, 1998
Begin Construction ............... ......................Mid -June, 1998
Complete Construction ........... ........................August, 1998
W p '
1 /
j 5117 /
50'
sRRUS � °o � PROPOSED EDK OF,BfTUM II NOIIS :- CS- NOOOSLEM
5119
2" CONTOUR INTERVAL
1'S E\
WALL
jIAST FLOOR
GARAGE FLOOR
Q �\ •880.27
Il
Q PROP ' PYC _ UT_
O I 5131 .4 E8` .� ILITY EASEMENT
� I NEM STONE NA�L _ _ vROP — —
CD 5129 I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I
5133 4431 I I 4425 I 4421
I 4429 I
I i I
W. 52nd ST.
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
STORM SEWER AND ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION
WOODDALE GLEN
CITY OF EDINA
Subtotal Construction Cost $20,400
10% Contingency $2,000
Total Construction Cost $22,400
15% Engineering, Clerical, & Finance $3,400
Total Construction Cost $25,800
7.5% Finance $1,900
TOTAL ASSESSED COST $27,700
Storm Water Utility Fund Cost $3,100
10% Contingency $300
TOTAL ESTMATED PROJECT COST $31,100
PRELIM COST ESTIMATE Page 1 11:11 AM4/3/98
~1 iw01��f1�
r
April 8, 1998 City OF Edina
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND STREET RESURFACING
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT NOS. A -183 & STS -252
Wooddale Glen from Wooddale Avenue to End of Cul -de -Sac
The Edina City Council will meet at the Edina City Hall on Monday, April 20, 1998 at 7:00 PM to
hold a Public Hearing on the storm sewer improvements and street reconstruction on Wooddale
Glen from Wooddale Avenue to the end of the cul -de -sac. This hearing is being conducted under
the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
This hearing has been called as a result of a petition from all the residents accessing Wooddale
Glen and would like improvements of the storm sewer system and street resurfacing. The
proposed project would be constructed in 1998, with the assessment hearing occurring in late
September or early October. The estimated project cost is $27,700. The cost of the project will be
funded by special assessment. The estimated cost per assessable lot is $4,900 and could be
divided over a ten year period with interest accumulating on the unpaid balance.
The area proposed to be assessed the cost of the proposed improvement includes:
Lot 3 and that part of Lot 4 lying NEIy of a line running from a pt in E line of Lot 4 dis 22 Ft Sly at rt
angles from NEIy line of Lot 3 to a pt in Nly line of Lot 4 dis 15 ft Sly at rt angles from the Nly line of
Lot 3 extended Lots 3 and 4; That part of Lot 4 lying SWly of the fol desc line and same extended
com at a pt in E line of Lot 4 dis 22 ft Sly at rt angles from NEIy line of Lot 3 th NWly to a pt in Nly
line of Lot 4 dis 15 ft Sly at rt angles from Nly line of Lot 3 extended; and Lots 6 thru 10, Country
Club District Wooddale Section.
Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property whose ownership is listed to you is among
those properties which are considered to be benefited by the improvement.
Any inquiries, comments and /or suggestions you may have regarding this improvement may be
forwarded to the City Council or Engineering Department prior to the hearing or presented at the
hearing itself. If you desire additional information, please call Wayne Houle at 826 -0443 between
8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday. The City Council can authorize the proposed
project immediately upon the close of the hearing.
Sincerely,
Francis J. off an, P.E.
Director of Public Works and City Engineer
WH /clf
City Hall (612) 927 -8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461
�1
April 3, 1998 City Of Edina
Wooddale Glen Area Residents
Edina, MN
Re: Resident Letter No. 1
Public Hearing Update
Storm Sewer Improvements & Street Resurfacing
Dear Resident:
The week of April 6 you will receive the official notice of a public hearing for stormsewer
improvements and street resurfacing for Wooddale Glen. This meeting will be held at Edina
City Council Chambers on Monday, April 20 at 7:00 PM. The process for a petitioned project
with special assessment proceedings is as follows:
✓ Initiation of improvement project by Council (staff) or by petition.
✓ Feasibility Report prepared and accepted with Council setting hearing date usually one
or two Council meetings prior to the Public Hearing
❑ Ten days notice is sent to affected property' owners. Also, legal notice is in the paper
(Edina Sun) prior to the hearing.
❑ Public hearing is conducted.
• Ordering of improvement project requires only majority of Council if petitioned by
residents (normally 3 votes of 5) or 4 of 5 Council votes if project is not initiated by
residents.
• Levy of special assessments is usually held at the completion of the project. The
special assessment, in essence, is levying a cost to the assessed property which
reflects local improvement value on specific property.
Last summer the City received a petition regarding improving the storm sewer and street
resurfacing along Wooddale Glen. Our department has evaluated the feasibility of improving
the storm sewer system along with resurfacing the street and feels that this project is feasible
from an engineering standpoint. Mr. & Mrs. Lannan of 5119 Wooddale Glen will be distributing
information regarding this improvement.
Please contact me at 826 -0443 if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
,// *u* A f�l G
Lv�
Wayne D. Houle, PE
Assistant City Engineer
City Hall (612) 927 -8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55.124 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461
1r��
o e t4
�1
• CORPO TS9
B
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
Agenda Item #
II. C.
From: Francis J. Hoffmand ,d
Consent
❑
City Engineer
Information Only
❑
Date: April 20, 1998
Mgr. Recommends
❑ To HRA
® To Council
Subject: Public Hearing:
Action
®Motion
Wooddale Lane Curb &
®Resolution
Gutter Imp. A -095
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
If the Council determines the project to be warranted and necessary, Council shall
adopt a resolution approving Wooddale Lane Curb & Gutter Imp. A -095, authorize
plans and specifications to be completed and bids taken.
Info /Background:
The City has received a petitioned by residents along Wooddale Lane to install curb &
gutter along Wooddale Lane. The proposed project would involve reclaiming the
existing bituminous, then installing concrete curb & gutter, and repaving the roadway.
Staff analyzed the petition and feels that the project is feasible from an engineering
standpoint.
The Feasibility Study was submitted to Council on April 6. 1 have attached a copy of
this Feasibility Study along with Notice of Public Hearing, and Resident Letter No. 1 to
this report.
The estimated project cost is $36,600. Funding for this project would be from a special
assessment of approximately $4,100 per assessable lot along Wooddale Lane.
o� A. r�
ay FEASIBILITY STUDY
'�• CITY OF EDINA
lees
STREET RESURFACING WITH CURB & GUTTER
WOODDALE LANE
MARCH 30, 1998
LOCATION: Wooddale Lane from Wooddale Avenue to end of cul -de -sac.
INNITIATION & ISSUES: This project was initiated by a petition from all nine of the residents
along Wooddale Lane. The petition requested the City to
investigate installation of curb & gutter along Wooddale Lane.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing roadway consists of a 20 foot to 23 foot wide
bituminous rural section. The pavement is in relatively good
condition. The grade of the roadway as relates to surface drainage
is very level from Wooddale Avenue to the end of the cul -de -sac.
The cul -de -sac contains an 18 inch diameter tree, surrounded by a
15 inch high wood wall.
IMPROVEMENT: Install curb & gutter and reclaim Wooddale Lane from Wooddale
Avenue to end of cul -de -sac. This project would involve reclaiming
the existing bituminous, a process that grinds up the existing
roadway, and adding concrete curb and gutter to both sides similar
in style to the curb & gutter along Wooddale Avenue. Placement of
the curb & gutter will require minimal regrading of the adjacent
lawns. A three inch bituminous pavement will then be placed on
the roadway. The cul -de -sac will require a center island to protect
an existing tree. Landscaping is suggested only if the residents
agree to maintain this island after construction.
RIGHT -OF -WAY: Adequate right -of -way exists.
FEASIBILITY: This project is feasible from an engineering / city standpoint.
EASEMENTS: No additional easements will be required.
COMPLETION: 1998 Construction Season (June- August)
ASSESSMENTS: A special assessment of approximately $4,100 per assessable lot
will be levied against the residents along Wooddale Lane.
PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated construction cost is $26,900. The
estimated project cost is $36,600, which includes indirect costs of
22.5 %, which includes engineering, clerical, and finance costs.
Funding for the entire project will be from special assessments.
Feasibility Study
Wooddale Lane
March 30, 1998
Page 2
PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule is feasible from an Engineering standpoint
only if Council orders this project:
Council Orders Public Hearing ......................March 16, 1998
Receive Feasiblity Report ...... ..........................April 6, 1998
Public Hearing ....................... .......................April20, 1998
Bid Opening .................... ............................May 28, 1998
Award Contract .................. ...........................June 1, 1998
Begin Construction ............... ......................Mid -June, 1998
Complete Construction ........... ........................August, 1998
w
Al
0
e�
5015
k- YIo.K -11. - I imh
NEW BITUMINOUS SURFACE I
1 5023
1
1
5019
1 " = 40'
1: ICS: No" RI 3-19.97
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
STORM SEINER AND ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION
WOODDALE LANE
CITY OF EDINA
Subtotal Construction Cost $26,900
10% Contingency $2,700
Total Construction Cost $29,600
15% Engineering, Clerical, & Finance $4,400
Total Construction Cost $34,000
7.5% Finance $2,600
TOTAL ASSESSED COST $36,600
PRELIM COST ESTIMATE Page 1 11:43 AM4/3198
w
a
91���.:
AA
'owe
April 8, 1998
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
STREET RESURFACING WITH CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT A -095
Wooddale Lane from Wooddale Avenue to End of Cull-de-Sac
City of Edina
The Edina City Council will meet at the Edina City Hall on Monday, April 20, 1998 at 7:00 PM to hold a
Public Hearing on the street recycling and bituminous resurfacing on Wooddale Lane from Wooddale
Avenue to the end of the cul -de -sac. This hearing is being conducted under the authority granted by
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
This hearing has been called as a result of a petition from all nine residents in the area requesting the
installation of curbs and gutter with street resurfacing. The proposed project would be constructed in 1998
with the assessment hearing occurring in late September or early October. The estimated project cost is
$36,600. The cost of the project will be funded by special assessment. The estimated cost per assessable
lot is $4,100 and could be divided over a ten year period with interest accumulating on the unpaid balance.
The area proposed to be assessed the cost of the proposed improvement includes:
That part of Lot 16 lying W of a line com at NEIy cor of Lot 16 and running Sly to a pt in the Sly line of said
Lot dis 14 ft Wly from the SEIy cor thereof; Lot 17 and that part of Lot 16 lying E of a line running from the
NEIy cor of Lot 16 to a pt in the Sly line of said Lot dis 14 ft Wly from the SEIy cor thereof, also the Wly
front and rear of Lot 18; Lot 19 and Ely '/z front and rear of Lot 18; Lots 20 thru 23; Lot 24 and that part of
Lot 25 lying E of the W 70 ft thereof, Lots 24 and 25; W 70 ft of Lot 25 and that part of Lot 26 lying E of the
W 100 ft thereof, Lots 25 and 26, and the W 100 ft of Lot 26, Country Club District Wooddale Section.
Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property whose ownership is listed to you is among those
properties which are considered to be benefited by the improvement.
Any inquiries, comments and /or suggestions you may have regarding this improvement may be forwarded
to the City Council or Engineering Department prior to the hearing or presented at the hearing itself. If you
desire additional information, please call Wayne Houle at 826 -0443 between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM,
Monday through Friday. The City Council can authorize the proposed project immediately upon the close
of the hearing.
Thank you,
jjF/rancls J. Hoffman, :l
Director of Public Works and City Engineer
W H /clf
City Hall (612) 927 -8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645
EDINA, MINNESOTA 33424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461
1rlA. �
April 3, 1998 City Of Edina
Wooddale Lane Area Residents
Edina, MN
Re: Resident Letter No.
Public Hearing Notice and Update
Street Resurfacing and Curb & Gutter Improvements
Dear Resident:
The week of April 6 you will receive the official notice of a public hearing for street resurfacing
and curb & gutter improvements along Wooddale Lane. This meeting will be held at Edina City
Council Chambers on Monday, April 20 at 7:00 PM. The process for a petitioned project with
special assessment proceedings is as follows:
✓ Initiation of improvement project by Council (staff) or by petition.
✓ Feasibility Report prepared and accepted with Council setting hearing date usually one
or two Council meetings prior to the Public Hearing
❑ Ten days notice is sent to affected property owners. Also, legal notice is in the paper
(Edina Sun) prior to the hearing.
❑ Public hearing is conducted.
❑ Ordering of improvement project requires only majority of Council if petitioned by
residents (normally 3 votes of 5) or 4 of 5 Council votes if project is not initiated by
residents.
❑ Levy of special assessments is usually held at the completion of the project. The
special assessment, in essence, is levying a cost to the assessed property which
reflects local improvement value on specific property.
Last fall the City received a petition regarding installation of curb & gutter along Wooddale Lane.
Our department has evaluated the feasibility of placing curb & gutter along Wooddale Lane and
feel that this project is feasible from an engineering standpoint. This project would involve
reclaiming the roadway, a process that grinds up the existing roadway, then constructing curb &
gutter along both sides, then repave the roadway. Driveway aprons would also be reinstalled
with this project. This project would be constructed this summer.
Please contact me at 826 -0443 if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Wayne D. Houle, PE
Assistant City Engineer
City Hall (612) 927 -8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461
a e
.�y REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUBJECT
DATE:
Mayor Smith and Members of the City Council
John Keprios, Director of Parks and Recreation
Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $15,000
April 15, 1998
AGENDA ITEM I V.A.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Irrigation System - Arneson Acres Park.
CompanX Amount of Quote or Bid
1. ALBRECHT ' 1. $21,345.00
2. Green Acres Sprinkler Co. 2. $24,170.00
3. 3.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
ALBRECHT $21,345.00
Account #: P033 -4901
GENERAL INFORMATION:
On Wednesday, April 15, 1998, bids were opened for purchase and installation of an underground
automated irrigation system for Arneson Acres Park. The irrigation system includes solid state
controllers that allow for automated sprinkling throughout the entire park. Programmed irrigation
of this beautifully landscaped park will assure successful plant life and help reduce reliance on
pesticides, which is in keeping with our environmentally friendly Turf Management Plan. This
contract also calls for providing the water source for the recently approved water fountain being
constructed in the center of the formal gardens.
c�
John Keplids, Director
This Recommended bid is
VAI
Edina Park and Recreation
Department ' l
W
within budget not within budget > Je6n Wallin, Finance Director
Kenneth Roslan4, City
a� e
,aaa
TO:
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
Mayor & City Council
FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $15.000
DATE: 20 April, 1998
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Upper Portion of a Salt Storage Structure
Company
1. Wicks Buildings
2. Ebert, Inc.
3. Jay Bros., Inc.
4. Riverside Construction of Elk River
5. Lester's of Minnesota, Inc.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
Reject Bids.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
AGENDA ITEM N.B.
Amount of Quote or Bid
1. $38,290.00
2. $43,200.00
3. $43,400.00
4. $47,493.00
5. $51,880.00
Staff has reviewed the bids and have determined that the Public Works crews could effectively
complete this structure at a lower cost than the bid. This project is funded within the ice and snow
control budget for 1998.
^ Public Works - Streets
Sign re Department
The Recommended Bid is
within budget not within budget Jo Wallin, Finance Director
Kenneth Rosla d, City Manager
tI
u
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $15.000
DATE: 20 April, 1998
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Articulated Sidewalk Plow
AGENDA ITEM mc.
Company Amount of Quote or Bid
1. MacQueen Equipment 1. $51,592.86
2. - 2.
3. 3.
4. 4.
5. 5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
MacQueen Equipment $51,592.86
GENERAL INFORMATION:
This purchase is for an articulated sidewalk plow which will replace Unit #25 -445, 1986 model. The bid
required that the replacement plow be able to use all existing attachments the City currently owns. Two
vendors could meet that requirement but only one chose to bid. This purchase is funded through the
equipment replacement program.
Signat e
The Recommended Bid is
within budget not within b
Kenneth
nd, City
Public Works - Streets
Department
Wallin, Finonce Director
q
F
o e V4
W
1888
REPORURECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
From: VINCE BONGAARTS
TRAFFIC SAFETY COORDINATOR
Date: APRIL 20, 1998
Subject:
TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF
REPORT OF APRIL 7, 1998
Recommendation:
Agenda Item #
A.
Consent
Information Only
Mgr. Recommends
To HRA
®
To Council
Action
®
Motion
Resolution
Ordinance
Discussion
Approve Traffic Safety Staff Report of April 7, 1998.
TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW
TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1998
The staff review of traffic safety matters occurred on April 7, 1998. Staff present
included the Assistant City Manager, Police Chief, City Engineer, Assistant City
Engineer, the Traffic Safety Coordinator and the Public Works Traffic Control Specialist.
From that review, the below recommendations are provided. On each of the items,
persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been
discussed with them. They have also been informed that if they disagree with the
recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can be included on the
April 20, 1998, Council Agenda.
SECTION A:
Requests on which the staff recommends approval.
There has been a request and also suggestions to change or add some
informational signing on the Crosstown Highway when eastbound and
approaching the Valley View exit.
One request has come from Fairview Southdale Hospital. They are requesting
the Hospital exit sign to indicate use of the Valley View exit and subsequent
signing to lead people into their entrance at W. 66`h Street and Drew.
There have also been suggestions to advise the Southdale traffic to exit at Valley
View Road.
It is felt that signing changes may help alleviate some of the traffic problems
being presently experienced at the eastbound exit to France Avenue. France
Avenue /Crosstown area which includes W. 65 h Street and France, is one of the
highest accident areas in Hennepin County. There is some construction
scheduled for that area, hopefully to solve some of the problems.
The staff recommends that Southdale Fairview Hospital draft a letter to the
Minnesota Department of Transpiration (Mn /DOT) requesting their signing
change proposal. The staff also recommends a letter from the City of Edina to
accompany the Hospital letter requesting a change regarding the Southdale
sign, advising traffic to use the Valley View exit.
2. Request for limited parking on the south side of W. 44`h Street between France
Avenue and the alley, which is located behind the building at 4400 France. This
space involves approximately 4 parking slots. The business at 4400 France
TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW
April 7, 1998
Page 2
would like this for customer traffic. Presently employees from area businesses
are parking there all day.
The staff recommends 1 hour parking restrictions posted for the south side of W.
44'h Street from France Avenue to alley entrance /exit.
SECTION B:
Requests on which the staff recommends denial of request.
1. Request for larger "Yield" signs for cars exiting the Crosstown and entering
southbound Valley View Road.
Requestor feels that the vehicles exiting the Crosstown and entering Valley View
Road are not yielding to southbound vehicles on Valley View Road and creating
a hazard.
After some observations it was determined that larger signs would not help the
situation. Signs in place are adequate. The problem seems to arise from the
fact that those vehicles southbound on Valley View Road have just left a "Stop"
sign they must stop for, located just to the north side of the Crosstown overpass
and subsequently, when they reach the exit point for Crosstown traffic on the
other side of the overpass some of them are still going fairly slow. The traffic
coming off the Crosstown is doing just the opposite and in some cases their
speed is greater than the vehicles on Valley View Road so they just continue on
without actually yielding. Sometimes common sense would prevail on who
should yield to who in this situation.
There appears to be no accident problems and the greater majority of traffic
appear to handle the situation with no problems.
The staff recommends denial of the larger "Yield" signs for exit ramp of
Crosstown eastbound lanes to Valley View Road.
SECTION C:
Requests which are deferred to a later date or referred to others.
In January, the staff recommended an independent study of the Parkwood Knolls
area traffic situation regarding cut through traffic during rush hours.
With the City Council's approval, the staff contacted the SRF Consulting Group
who have done work for the City in that area before.
TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW
April 7, 1998
Page 3
On April 7, 1998, SRF met with the staff to report their progress and exchange
ideas and get some direction on how to proceed. Hopefully, the staff will have a
recommendation regarding the Parkwood Knolls situation for the May 18"'
Council meeting.
2. Reference to the continuing study of the request for no through truck traffic or
some kind of truck restrictions on Washington Avenue between 3`d Street South
and Maloney Avenue.
This has turned out to be a drawn out situation due to the inability of Mn /DOT to
respond to our request to analyze their policies regarding truck traffic and signing
at their highway interchanges, specifically Highway 169 and South 7th Street, in
order to determine an equalization of access for both Edina and Hopkins.
There is also a refusal on the City of Hopkins' part to remove their signs denying
access to trucks on their side of the interchange at Highway 169 and South 7th
Street.
Therefore, the staff has decided to send another request to Mn /DOT requesting
removal of any signs denying access to trucks on the Edina side of the
interchange. Also included in the letter will be a request to expedite their
examination of policy regarding the use of such signs on state aid roads.
3. Request for 3 -way "Stop" signs at the T- intersection of Concord Avenue and
School Road.
This is a school crossing area with crosswalks and is an intersection also with
heavy vehicle traffic (school buses and parents) during school starting and
ending hours.
The staff has decided to continue this request for more study.
4. Requests for speed enforcement at two locations: (1) Wooddale both
northbound and southbound at W. 56th Street, and (2) Blake Road both
northbound and southbound between Maloney and Belmore, were referred to
the Police Department.
Observations at both locations indicated speeds well over the speed limit.
5. On April 7, 1998, the staff met with Jay Williamson from the Edina School
District. He brought with him a proposal for a joint traffic study to be done by the
School District administration and the City of Edina.
TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW
April 7, 1998
Page 4
The proposal was recommended by the Edina Board of Education on July 14,
1997, in which they asked for recommendations by January, 1998. However, the
first the staff heard of this proposal was on April 7, 1998. A copy of the proposal
is attached.
Basically, they are asking for an investigation of traffic patterns around the
schools and the subsequent impact on walkers.
Part of the School District's problem is the increased number of parents driving
their children to and from school. The increased traffic levels are being
generated by the parents themselves.
The staff will look at this proposal and see how it relates to what we are already
doing. Further discussion is needed regarding the value of a joint traffic study.
TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW
April7, 1998
Page 4
The proposal was recommended by the Edina Board of Education on July 14,
1997, in which they asked for recommendations by January, 1998. However, the
first the staff heard of this proposal was on April 7, 1998. A copy of the proposal
is attached.
Basically, they are asking for an investigation of traffic patterns around the
schools and the subsequent impact on walkers.
Part of the School District's problem is the increased number of parents driving
their children to and from school. The increased traffic levels are being
generated by the parents themselves.
The staff will look at this proposal and see how it relates to what we are already
doing. Further discussion is needed regarding the value of a joint traffic study.
6. Staff recently received a neighborhood survey regarding traffic issues along
Maple Road. Residents from.this area compiled a list of possible solutions
regarding safety and traffic problems that they believe. exist on Maple Road.
SRF Consulting Group were asked to review this survey and address what
changes to the transportation network would benefit residents along Maple
Road. SRF performed the Edina Country Club Neighborhood Traffic Study along
with many other traffic studies throughout Edina. SRF has submitted a memo
addressing these issues. This memo is attached to this report. SRF feels that
the majority of the traffic along Maple Road is generated by the greater
neighborhood itself. SRF stated the following regarding the four items favored
by the residents:
Speed Limit Reduction: Existing 85th percentile speed is 29 mph.
Local Traffic Only: Unlawful for City to enforce.
Stop Signs: Minimal reduction of travel time.
No Left Turns from West 50th Street: Too significant inconvenience for
residents.
SRF also stated that improving the traffic flow along West 50" Street would be
an effective solution to reducing "through" traffic along Maple Road.
Staff has decided to continue these possible solutions for further study.
39
FOR ACTION
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 273
Regular Meeting, July 14, 1997
Volume 69, Report 18
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY
Be it Resolved, That
The Board of Education
Direct administration to pursue with the city an
investigation of traffic patterns on the city streets
surrounding our schools and bring recommendations to
the Board of Education by January 1998 that will
promote the increased safety of the students who walk
to school in our district.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
It has been brought to our attention by numerous sources (prin-
cipals, parents, site councils, and city residents) that the
traffic levels on streets surrounding some of our schools have
significantly grown in the last few years. In order to better
understand this important matter, we believe a complete investi-
gation is urgently needed to help facilitate the safety of those
Edina students who walk to school each day.
Because we share this concern with the City of Edina, a
partnership between the school district and the city may be one
way to begin the investigation of traffic patterns around the
schools and the subsequent impact on walkers. More than ten
years ago a study was conducted concerning traffic on 70th
Street. As a result of this previous study, a traffic light was
installed at 70th and Cornelia.
When the current investigation is completed, it is hoped that any
recommendations would be ranked in the order of greatest priority
in the event that implementation would be done in stages as
funds, such as Health and Safety allocations, may become
available.
FULINCoNSULTING GROUP, INC.
Transportation ■ Civil ■ Structural ■ Environmental ■ Planning ■ Traffic ■ Landscape Architecture ■ Parking
SRF No. 0983003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Traffic Safety Committee, City of Edina
FROM: Dennis R. Eyler, P.E., Principal
. Jeff Bednar, Senior Traffic Engineer Specialist
DATE: April 16, 1998
SUBJECT: MAPLE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ISSUES
As the traffic safety committee has requested we have completed a review of the subject
Maple Road neighborhood traffic issues and other available information related to these
issues including the AD HOC Maple Road Study Committee Survey of the residents.
Based on this review the following comments and recommendations are offered for your
consideration:
• Based on traffic counts completed by the City in February 1997 it is estimated that the
average daily traffic volume on Maple Road north of 50`s Street is 1,000 vehicles per
day. According to the Metropolitan Council's Functional Classification System for
Streets and Highways, 1,000 vehicles per day is the upper limit for local streets.
Beyond 1,000 vehicles per day the street would fall into the collector street
classification. Recent information related to daily traffic volumes on local residential
streets indicates that neighborhood residents begin to feel uncomfortable when daily
traffic volumes on their street reach 500 vehicles per day or more.
• In an effort to identify the amount of "through" traffic using Maple Road, the City
completed a sample license plate survey on Maple Road north of 50`s Street during
both the morning and afternoon peak periods in late January and early February 1998.
From this data there appears to be significantly more "through" traffic during the
afternoon peak periods. This is typical of "through" traffic in other neighborhoods
that have been studied throughout. the City. This "through" traffic is most likely
"cutting" through the Maple Road neighborhood in order to avoid the higher level of
congestion and delay in the France Avenue and West 50' Street area that occurs
during the afternoon peak periods.
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447 -4443
Telephone (612) 475 -0010 ■ Fax (612) 475 -2429 ■ http://www.srfconsulting.com
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Traffic Safety Committee - 2 - April 16, 1998
• Based on this sample license plate survey it is estimated that there could be between
20 to 35 percent "through" traffic within the total traffic volume present on Maple
Road. Assuming the City was able to take effective action to eliminate all of this
"through" traffic, there would continue to be as much as 650 to 800 vehicle trips per
day on Maple Road. This would also be a daily traffic volume that the neighborhood
residents could be uncomfortable with.
• The travel shed that Maple Road serves (the area south of Sunnyside Road, west of
France Avenue, north of 50' Street and east of Arden Avenue) contains over
125 homes. At an average of 14 trips per day per household (typical to this area of
Edina) this travel shed would generate over 1,750 daily vehicle trip .ends. This
condition is what would keep the daily traffic volume on Maple Road at higher levels
even if the "through" traffic is reduced.
• The level of "through" traffic on Maple Road is similar to other neighborhoods in
Edina which have also been studied. Neighborhoods such as: Tracy Avenue between
West 66h Street and West 70" Street, Interlachen Hills and Parkwood Knolls have
similar levels of "through" traffic volumes that ' amount to 200 to 400 "through"
vehicles per day. To date the City has not taken any significant actions in these
neighborhoods. The exception to this is the Country Club neighborhood where the
"through" traffic volume was "thousands" of vehicles per day. In this exceptional
case the City did take remedial action, not so much to reduce or eliminate the
"through" traffic but more to redistribute it to more streets in an effort to share the
burden.
• In the case of the Maple Road neighborhood, as well as the Country Club
neighborhood, the high level of congestion and delay in the area of West 50'h Street
and France Avenue is the cause of the neighborhood "through" traffic. Travel time
runs through the study area during the afternoon peak period indicate that it is, on the
average, 90 seconds faster to cut - through the neighborhood than to use the
50' Street/France Avenue area. As was found in the Country Club neighborhood the
City couldn't install enough additional stop signs or speed humps on Maple Road to
make up for that kind of travel time advantage. One stop sign increases travel time by
12 -15 seconds if the driver fully stops. To increase the travel time through the
neighborhood enough to make the travel time the same on each route would take
six additional stops, more if the route through the area of 50' Street and
France Avenue was to' be fast enough to pull the "through" traffic out of the
neighborhood. There are only four intersections along the Maple Road/48" Street
route. Speed humps offer even less of an increase in travel time and would therefore
not be effective in reducing "through" traffic.
T r a f f i c Safety Committee - 3 - April 16, 1998
• Speed humps can be. effective in reducing speeds in the immediate area of the hump
(100 to 200 feet from the hump). However, upon review of the Maple Road speed
samples collected by the City, the 85`" percentile speed was found to be 29 mph. This
indicates that a speeding problem does not exist on Maple Road. If the 85'" percentile
speed was significantly over 30 mph, a speeding problem would be indicated. But
since 15 percent of drivers will exceed the posted speed limit or safe speed,
irrespective of attempts to lower their speeds by any means, an 85`" percentile speed
of 30 mph or less is considered acceptable in a 30 mph zone.
• Speed humps are not considered a low cost action. In order to construct a speed
hump that; follows traffic safety guidelines, is effective in reducing speeds to 15 to
20 mph, does not impede street surface drainage, is easily cleared of snow and ice and
is attractive enough to place in a neighborhood setting, the City/neighborhood would
need to spend between $10,000415,000 for each speed hump needed. And in order
to be effective in reducing overall speeds these humps would need to be installed at
intervals of 500 to 600 feet. At least three to maybe four speed humps would be
needed on Maple Road between 50' Street and 48`'' Street to be effective in reducing
the higher vehicle speeds. Estimated cost, $30,000 to $60,000.
• Signs such as "Local Traffic Only" or "No Through Traffic" cannot be enforced by
the City since Maple Road is a public street. It would be unlawful for the City to
exclude anyone from using this publicly operated and maintained street.
• Banning the eastbound to northbound left -turn during the peak periods at Maple Road
and 50" Street could help reduce the "through" traffic, but only in direct proportion to
the level of enforcement of that turn restriction. Additionally, it would be unlawful
for the City to selectively enforce this turn restriction by enforcing the ban for non-
residents but allowing the residents to make the banned turn. The "No Left Turn"
sign means 'Ug4' left turns. This turn restriction would result in a significant
inconvenience for many of the neighborhood residents.
• The most effective actions to reduce "through" traffic in the neighborhood would
include street closures, cul -de -sacs and traffic diverters. However, once the "through"
traffic is gone what remains is the significant inconvenience to many of the
neighborhood residents who now have a restricted freedom of movement and for
many trips are forced to use the highly congested area of 50' Street and
France Avenue. Should these actions then be reversed, it would not take long for the
"through" traffic to find its way back into the neighborhood.
Traffic Safety Committee - 4 - April 16, 1998
• Probably the best solution to the Maple Road neighborhood "through" traffic problem
would be to improve traffic operations in the area of 50`h Street and France Avenue in
order reduce the high level of congestion and delay. However, the streetscape theme
and on- street parking in the area would need to be compromised in order to add traffic
lanes, because only adding lanes in this area will result in significant improvement.
There maybe some minor improvements that could be made to the traffic signal
system operation such as a leading southbound left -turn phase at 50`h Street and
France Avenue, but this would only result in a minor traffic operations improvement.
Peak period on- street parking restrictions could also be considered.
• The Edina City staff is currently engaged in discussions with the City of Minneapolis
staff related to traffic signal system interconnect between France Avenue and
Halifax Avenue on 50'h Street. This system interconnect could improve traffic
operations on 50`h Street substantially. This improvement would include replacement
of the traffic signal control hardware at both intersections along with a hardwire
twisted pair interconnect.
• A public street, no matter what traffic volume or speed level is present, should never
be characterized or considered as a "safe" environment for children to play or for
older /senior residents to walk within or adjacent to. Mixing children (especially at
play) and older /senior residents with moving vehicles is an inherently dangerous
condition. It can not be recommended that the City take any action that could be
interpreted as an endorsement of this interaction between playing children/older/
senior residents and vehicular traffic on a public street.
• The best action that can be taken to protect children and other pedestrians, is to
separate them from the vehicular traffic. This can be done by constructing sidewalks
and/or trails separated from the roadway, and/or by providing close parent or adult
caretaker supervision whenever these groups are in close proximity to or within the
roadway.
JB:bba
AD HOC MAPLE ROAD STUDY COMMITTEE
March, 1998
Mr. Wayne D. Houle
Assistant City Engineer
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424 -1394
Dear Mr. Houle:
Following the City's receipt of a petition asking that sidewalks be installed along
Maple Road, several of us formed an ad hm committee to attempt to discover the
feelings of Maple Road residents.
We compiled a survey form for Maple Road residents concerning the safety and
traffic problems which we believe exist on our street. Then we listed all of the possible
items which we believed could help in the solution or solutions to these problems. A
copy of the survey form and cover letter are enclosed.
We sent the survey to 40 addresses, including two just around the corner on
West 48th Street between Townes and Maple Roads. Of these 40, we received 37
replies. These replies have been tabulated, and the results sent to all Maple Road
residents. The returned survey forms are available for inspection at the home of Mike
Stolee (925 - 0554). A copy of the survey results and cover letter are also enclosed.
The survey results speak for themselves. Maple Road has a serious traffic
problem from cut - through drivers avoiding the 50th and France intersection. Residents
overwhelmingly desire solutions other than sidewalks.
It is our understanding that a public hearing on the sidewalk petition is
scheduled for April 20. We will attend and will be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Sincerely,
Ed Claire, 4825 Maple Road
Dayna and Don Deutsch, 4921 Maple Road
Mike Martin, 4905 Maple Road
Mike Stolee, 4824 Maple Road
Barb Tubman, 4900 Maple Road
Mary Wyffels, 4920 Maple Road
AD HOC MAPLE ROAD STUDY COMMITTEE
March, 1998
To Our Maple Road Neighbors:
Thank you for taking part in the survey of the safety and traffic situations on
Maple Road. Your responses have been compiled, and a report is included with this
letter.
Survey forms were sent to 40 homes, and 37 were completed and returned. All
37 respondents requested a copy of the results. Every reply has been tabulated, each
comment has been copied, and they are all included in the attached report.
Mike Stolee (925 -0554) has all of the completed surveys, and will make them
available for your inspection upon your request. Mike will be out of town for several
days, but he will be happy to meet with you on or after Tuesday, March 17.
Copies of this report (including the original survey form) are also being sent to
Mayor Smith, members of the City Council, the City Engineer, and Assistant City
Engineer Wayne Houle.
Sincerely,
Ed Claire, 4825
Dayna and Don Deutsch, 4921
Mike Martin, 4905
Mike Stolee, 4824
Barb Tubman, 4900
Mary Wyffels, 4920
.MAPLE ROAD TRAFFIC SURVEY -- RESULTS
Tot
ypq PAMik�mn .
1
Do you believe there is a safety problem on Maple Road?
23:::':62.'2-%.
13351%
1 %
1 '2 ..... ... ...
37
2
Do you believe there is a traffic problem on Maple Road?
33::..9;2%
4:10 8%
0 :::::::'0 0%
:: ............
37
2a.
If yes, is traffic density a part of the problem?
2 7. 5 7 4; 3"
5.5:14779%
.................
4: -10 ::B%
........ . . ... .. .
37
2b.
If yes, is traffic speed a part of the problem?
32:pffi'5%
2:.:5.4%
3
37
Items concerning alleviation of the problem
F = in favor of the idea
N = Neutral or no opinion about the idea
0 = Opposed to the idea
NR = No Response
Number
Item
F
0/6,: ........
N
ss
... 0A. N
s::
0 -::%0!ii€
....... ... ..........
iiNR
... - ..... ..
:% NRTot
1
Bicycle/Pedestrian lane
7:
18'91%
16:412%
13::::,
1:2.7%
37
2
Cul-de-sacs
12.5.:31.8%.
11
29.7%
11.5:::31A.%.
.... . .... ...
2:�
5.4%
. ... ....
37
3
One-way streets
8:::21'6%
7.5:20
3%*
20.5
554%
1:2.7%
37
4
Parking on one side only
13::35
1%
12.5
33.8%
10.5:::::28:.
%
1:2
7%
37
5
Restrictive traffic signs
5a.
Local Traffic Only
28::75!7%
7
1 :1:9PA
...
1
71/9.
1
:247%
37
5b.
No Left Turn 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM from 50th
25:::67:6%
.. .....
8
2- 1: � 6"'%
........
. .
27%
. .... .
37
5c.
Limited time parking
10:
27;0%
14.5
39.2%
11.5
-31.1%
1:2.7%
37
6
Sidewalks
....
...
6a.
Both sides
7.5
0:
::�2 :3%
2
:::::::&4%
25.5 :::::::6&:9%
.....
2
54%
........
37
6b.
One side
5
%
51
25:7::67:16
%
2:5
4%
37
6c.
Curbside (as on Wooddale, 50th to 54th)
6:162%
. . ......... . ..
. ......... ....
4.5122%
24.5::::::::6&:2,
%
2`5
4%
37
7
Speed bumps (high but not wide)
10:.
7.0%
14:37
8%
12
32:4%
..... .. .. .... ..
1
27%
. .........
37
8
Speed humps (high and wide)
16::::43!2%
12:32:4%
8:::::216%
1:2
7.%
37
9
Speed limit reduction
32::::86;:A
3:::.8:1%
1
...... .....
1
'27%
37
10
Stop signs
27
.73 .. ....
4
:10: 80%
:2.9.7
5
3 5%
................. .. ..
1
2 7%
37
1
Street narrowing
6
16 2%
11
19:
1
27.%
37
12
ITraffic circles
12
1021.0%1
12 ::.:
:32A%;
3
�8 %1
: .1
37
Note: Where a survey form was returned and had two responses indicated for one item, each response was given a
score of .5.
N
MAPLE ROAD TRAFFIC SURVEY ANALYSIS
IN FAVOR: Items which were favored by 50% or more of the 37 respondents
Speed Limit Reduction 86.5%
Local Traffic Only 75.7%
Stop Signs 73.0%
No Left Turn 7 -9 AM, 4-6 PM from 50th 67.6%
OPPOSED: Items which were opposed by 50% or more of the 37 respondents
Sidewalks on Both Sides
68.9%
Sidewalks on One Side
67.6%
Sidwalks, Curbside
66.2%
One -way Streets
55.4%
Street Narrowing
51.4%
MAPLE ROAD TRAFFIC SURVEY
COMMENTS
1. We want a practical solution for protecting our children from speeding traffic.
The recent meeting presented the community with four practical alternatives.
Sidewalks are an immediate actionable solution to a community problem and I favor
Option A which will have very low impact on trees and low costs for our community. All
other proposals as above will take years to move through the ( ? ? ? ?). I'm disturbed
over the lack of desire for people to actually do something instead on engage in
meaningless debate.
2. Most of the "N's" signify the need for more information as to the likely
effectiveness of those approaches. We're generally open to good suggestions. We
believe that the best safety measure is sidewalks, because most of the existing traffic is
local, and because sidewalks physically separate the people from the cars.
3. Unfortunately most of these solutions have been suggested and denied. .
On- street parking is documented to actually reduce traffic on residential streets.
Eliminating it would serve to increase risk.
4. Other than sidewalks we would be in favor of just about anything that would limit
the number and speed of vehicles using Maple Road.
5. 1 believe that we need independent tree inspectors to give opinions on how
many trees would be lost if sidewalks are installed. Sidewalks are =the solution to
the problems of speed and density of traffic. Alternative actions should be explored
before we go ahead with the proposed petition.
6. (From a letter) ... We have serious concerns about.the installation of
sidewalk(s) as described in the letter we received from the Edina City Planning
Department. Our concerns are:
A. The design leaves all of us with very little front yard and would, in
our opinion, destroy the charm we have all tried very hard to maintain over the
years.
B. Additionally, the planned sidewalk would be laid over the roots of
our Dutch elms, endangering the destruction of one of Maple Road's treasured
possessions. Many of us have spent hundreds of dollars in Dutch elm disease
prevention to preserve these trees. It seems ludicrous that the Edina Planning
Commission cavalierly dismiss this objection as improbable.
C. The assessments levied against each property owner to build the
sidewalk presents an unneeded financial burden to those of us already paying
exceedingly high property taxes.
Before embarking on such an extravagant and unpopular plan, it would seem
prudent to experiment with less costly and, undoubtedly, more effective methods of
solving the traffic problem. In our opinion, speed bumps, stop signs, speed reduction
signs are all low cost, effective means of achieving greater traffic safety on Maple Road
with none of the inherent risks put forth by building a sidewalk. Can the sidewalk
project be tabled until some or all of these simple alternatives are tested? .. .
MAPLE ROAD TRAFFIC SURVEY
COMMENTS
7. In spite of what they said about preserving the trees I think we would lose too
many. The canopy over the street is what makes Maple Road outstanding. That was
one of the main reasons I moved here.
8. (re: Safety problem) Possibly, but I only moved in 2/17.
(re: Bicycle /pedestrian lane) Would people be allowed to park in this? I
presume not.
I fear that sidewalks might increase the likelihood of non - resident parking. Are
the "switchback" streets used in South Minneapolis a possibility? For instance, not
allowing access to France from 48th or 49th, but routing traffic to Townes and out?
Perhaps the cul-de -sac will achieve the same end. What about parking "bays" on one
side of the street?
9. (Re: Bicycle /pedestrian lane) Response was N and 0,. "I'm not sure this would
be very effective."
(Re: Cul-de -sacs) Explain. Would this be in combination with sidewalks and
parking restrictions ? ??
(Sidewalks - Both sides) Response was F, "Only after all other options have
been pursued."
(Sidewalks - Curbside) No response, "I don't think this is very attractive. The
'meandering' option had some charm to it."
We support exploring all possible options, especially signage and additional
law- enforcement before committing to the more invasive solution of sidewalks.
"Greenspace" vs. concrete is a preferable option. Do pedestrians have the right of
way? If so, vehicles traveling down Maple Road should have to obey "enforceable"
restrictions. If stop signs, speed signs, (10 mph for example), "local traffic only" signs
are not possible, then we would support sidewalks.
10. (Re: Traffic speed) Could be, although we do not believe safety and traffic are
problems. we do have safety concerns.
Thank you for creating a better worded survey than the one from "City Hall." As I
said at the time, we do not feel problems exist but safety is a concern.
Edina Art Fair weekend is a big concern — especially for those closer to 50th.
11. Add to #5b — no right turn 7 -9 AM and 4-6 PM from 48th and France
(southbound).
Re: #1 — There would be no "safety problem" if parents would keep their children
from playing in the streets.
12. Believe there is increased traffic. but comes with increased business activity in
this area.
13. See my comments to the city - copy attached.
Maple Road has become a detour because people want to avoid the bad traffic
engineering at 50th and France.
I►
MAPLE ROAD TRAFFIC SURVEY
COMMENTS
The need to be addressed is not sidewalks — it is the speed and volume of traffic
by non - residents using Maple Road as a by -pass. Even with sidewalks, the traffic
problem still exists. That is one need to be solved — not on Maple Road, but at 50th
and Halifax and 50th and France. Why should we bear the risk and cost of that not
being resolved? In summary: we see no value in sidewalks —it does not solve the
problem.
14. (Sidewalks) Issue: save the trees — last resort.
(Sidewalks - both sides): We are divided on this one. (F and 0)
Sidewalks would add safety and value to Maple Road, but at what expense? —
the trees, our front lawns and privacy, and out of pocket expense. As times goes on we
could be swayed either way.
Perhaps both the sidewalk and roadway dust should be allowed to settle for 2 -5
years when repavement is no longer an option. For the short-term, look to signage and
restrictive parking.
15. (Re: Safety problem) For young, unsupervised children.
We are on the fence about sidewalks. We share the concerns voiced about tree
damage, lack of privacy, etc. But we are not certain what alternative would be best.
16. (Re: Street narrowing) This would seem to restrict any available space a driver
has to avoid an accident. However, if it can be demonstrated that it reduces speed, it
may be worthwhile.
The traffic problem on Maple will continue as long as it is easier to use Maple
rather than any other route. Sidewalks will not prevent children from crossing the street
or playing in the street. Those are parental issues. The speed needs to be reduced
and it needs to be made difficult to drive down Maple.
17. Believe that any form of sidewalk solution to traffic problem is too drastic and
does not solve speed or density issues. The alternative measures (speed bumps, stop
and slow signs, restricted parking, etc.) address the traffic and, therefore, the safety
problem.
18. Re: No left turn) And also from France Avenue to streets leading to Maple
Road.
Thanks to all who are trying to solve a serious traffic situation on Maple Road.
We would hate to see this controversy pit neighbor against neighbor. Now let's all
hope the City Council will listen to us.
19. (Re: Street Narrowing) In favor only if sidewalks are included.
20. We have lived on Maple Road for 37 years. Our three children grew up in this
house, and now our grandchildren visit. We do not feel that there is a safety problem,
or that sidewalks will make the street safer.
3
MAPLE ROAD TRAFFIC SURVEY
COMMENTS
21. (Re: Sidewalks, curbside) Oppose if this would narrow the street.
My only concern to you as a group is that I do not see any individuals who are
pro - sidewalk within your committee. I'm concerned that this may slant the bias away
from an objective solution.
22. (Re: safety problems) If safety is considered an issue then the traffic issue
should be addressed.
(Re: one -way streets) This might work but would certainly hinder local traffic.
(Re: Parking on one side only) This might actually increase traffic flow.
(Re: No left turn) In addition, a "no right turn" should be placed at 48th and 49th
Streets from France Ave. This might work if strictly enforced by city.
The larger problem of traffic avoidance of 50th and France needs to be
addressed. Traffic should be at 50th and France or the existing traffic diversions at
Halifax and 49 -112 Streets.
23. (Re: Traffic density) Not enough comparative data to know.
24. To the committee — Thanks for your help in all this!
4
AG HOC MAPLE ROAD STUDY COMMITTEE
February, 1998
To Our Maple Road Neighbors:
Many Maple Road residents believe there is a traffic safety problem for our
children and for us, caused by drivers using Maple Road as a cut - through to avoid the
50th and France intersection. They believe that this traffic safety problem involves both
the number of vehicles and the speed at which they are driven.
Several of our neighbors, driven by concerns for the safety of their children and
frustration over the failure of the city to take any steps to ease traffic pressure,
submitted a petition to the city asking that sidewalks be constructed on Maple. Road,
The persons listed below have come together as an ad hm committee to
consider the situation. We have no predetermined position regarding any solution. It
is our desire to consider aff available options for better safety, not only sidewalks. In
order to do this, we need to know the feelings of all Maple Road residents.
The enclosed survey questionnaire has been prepared to provide information as
to how all of us feel about the traffic situation, and what might be some methods of
dealing with it. We ask that you complete the survey and return it to us not later than
March 1, 1998, using the enclosed stamped addressed envelope.
We will share the results of this survey with each person who asks.
Please complete the survey and return it promptly. Your input is needed.
Sincerely,
Ed Claire, 4825
Dayna and Don Deutsch, 4921
Mike Martin, 4905
Mike Stolee, 4824
Barb Tubman,- 4900
Mary Wyffels, 4920
MAPLE ROAD TRAFFIC SAFETY SURVEY
The basic questions are these: (circle either yes or no)
1. Do you believe there is a safety problem on Maple Road?
yes
no
2. Do you believe there is a traffic problem on Maple Road?
yes
no
2a. If yes, is traffic density a part of the problem?
yes
no
2b If yes, is traffic speed a part of the problem?
yes
no
If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions, please indicate which (if any)
of
the ideas listed below would help to alleviate the problem, Please circle one letter for
each:
Circle F if you are in favor of this idea.
Circle N if you are neutral or have no opinion.
Circle 0 if you oppose this idea.
Items are listed in alphabetical order.
1. Bicycle /pedestrian lane
F
N
0
2. Cul-de -sacs
F
N
0
3. One -way streets
F
N
0
4. Parking on one side only
F
N
0
5. Restrictive traffic signs
5a. "Local Traffic Only"
F
N
0
5b. "No Left Turn 7 -9 AM and 4-6 PM" from 50th
F
N
0
5c. Limited time parking
F
N
0
6. Sidewalks
6a. Both sides
F
N
0
6b. One side
F
N
0
6c. Curbside (as on Wooddale, 50th to 54th)
F
N
0
7. Speed bumps (high but not wide)
F
N
0
8. Speed humps (high and wide)
F
N
0
9. Speed limit reduction
F
N
0
10. Stop signs
F
N
O
11. Street narrowing
F
N
0
12. 'Traffic circles
F
N
0
Space for your additional comments and/or ideas:
(Optional) In order to help us make sure that we have the opinions of all
residents of Maple Road, please write your house number in the space below.
House number
Would you like a copy of the results of the survey? (If "yes ", you must provide
your house number.)
Yes No
Please return this survey in the enclosed stamped addressed envelope, not later
than March 1, 1998.
If you desire additional information or have questions, you may call Mike Stolee
at 925 -0554 or any other member of the a.b2a committee.
['ff4
roR ae'T REPORURECOMMENDATION
TO: Mayor Smith and Members
of the City Council
From: John Keprios, Director
Park and Recreation Department
Date: April 16, 1998
Subject:
Naming of the Braemar Arena
Commons Area -Jerry Dalen
Commons.
Recommendation:
Agenda Item # ,- V. B.
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA
X To Council
Action X Motion
❑ Resolution
❑ Ordinance
❑ Discussion
Approve the Park Board's recommendation to name the Braemar Arena commons area "The Jerry
Dalen Commons ".
Background:
At their March 10, 1998, meeting, the Park Board approved City Manager, Ken Rosland's
recommendation to name the new commons area at Braemar Arena:
"THE JERRY DALEN COMMONS"
For some background on Mr. Jerry Dalen, he started working for the City of Edina in November of
1955. After 28 years of service with the City of Edina, Jerry retired as Finance Director for the City in
January 1983. Jerry became known as one of Edina High School hockey's biggest fan. He began
attending games during the State Tournament in 1974 and has rarely missed a Varsity or Junior Varsity
home game since. At Jerry Dalen's retirement party, Jerry was presented an Edina Letterman's sweater
by long -time Edina High School Hockey Coach, Willard Ikola in honor of Jerry's hockey game
attendance. In addition, Mr. Rosland also presented him with a lifetime pass to all future Edina home
hockey games.
It is staffs recommendation that the City Council approve the Park Board's recommendation to name
the new commons area at Braemar Arena "The Jerry Dalen Commons." If approved by the City
Council, an appropriate plaque will be placed on the wall of the Braemar Arena commons area in his
honor.
%k
O
H
"00nr011111G"
lees //
REPORURECOMMENDATION
To: KENNETH ROSLAND
From: GORDON HUGHES
Date: APRIL 20, 1998
Subject:
REGULATION OF CAMPAIGN
SIGNS
Agenda Item #
Consent
Information Only
Mgr. Recommends
Action
❑ To HRA
❑ To Council
❑ Motion
❑ Resolution
❑ Ordinance
® Discussion
REPORT:
Some time ago you asked that I review the City Code with respect to the regulation
of political campaign signs. You inquired if the Code should be amended to provide
more restrictions on size and number of such signs, especially restrictions limiting
property owners to one sign per candidate.
PRESENT REQUIREMENTS:
Section 460 of the Code provides as follows:
"Subd. 4 Campaign Signs. Subject to the applicable provisions of M.S. 2118.045, signs may be
posted from August 1 in a state general election year until ten days following the state general election.
Campaign signs erected in conjunction with elections held at times other than a state general election
are subject to the following restrictions:
A. Maximum Size- six square feet.
B. Maximum Number- one sign for each candidate per frontage.
C. Maximum Duration- 60 days prior to the election until seven days following the election.
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION - REGULATION OF CAMPAIGN SIGNS
April 20, 1998
Page two
Based upon this Subdivision, the City clearly may regulate signs during off -year
elections (such as school board elections) or for special elections such as bond
issue referenda. During state -wide elections, however, M.S. 211 B.045 affects our
ability to regulate campaign signs.
EFFECTS OF M.S. 211 b.045:
M.S. 211 B.045 provides as follows:
"In any municipality with an ordinance that regulates the size of noncommercial signs, notwithstanding
the provisions of that ordinance, all noncommercial signs of any size may be posted from August 1 in a
state general election year until ten days following the state general election."
In my view, this statute clearly prohibits the City from restricting the size of non-
commercial opinion signs during the stated time period. (A non - commercial opinion
sign, such as a campaign sign, is one that expresses an opinion deemed by the
courts to have greater protection than other signs such as those which advertise
products, businesses, services, events and other matters of a commercial nature).
It is unclear if M.S. 2118.045 likewise prohibits regulations restricting the number or
the location of such non - commercial signs during general elections. In this regard, I
solicited the opinion of the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC). The attached
correspondence from the LMC responds to my inquiry. In the view of the research
specialist who reviewed this issue, the City may not be able to regulate the number
of campaign signs but can probably regulate their placement, especially as it relates
to their proximity to public rights of way. I have asked Mr. Gilligan to review the
LMC's reasoning and he generally agrees with their interpretation especially in light
of case law dealing with such matters.
Even if the City concluded that it could restrict the number of signs per candidate per
lot, I am concerned with our ability to enforce such a limitation. For example, an
individual could tape several signs together making one large sign and argue that
such a sign is exempt due to the preemption of size restrictions. Also, an individual
could join several signs together with a small strip of fabric or paper and likewise
argue that only one sign had been erected. Also, what if an individual posted a sign
stating, for example, "Johnson for Congress" and then posted another sign stating
"Citizens Against Anderson for Congress" (Anderson happens to be Johnson's
opponent)? Do these constitute two signs for the same candidate or not? I am also
concerned that a limitation on the number of signs may inadvertently encourage
larger signs which may prove to be more troublesome than multiple signs.
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION - REGULATION OF CAMPAIGN SIGNS
April 20, 1998
Page three
Based upon our interpretation of state law and case law as well as the above
concerns, we do not recommend an amendment to the City Code which limits the
number of signs during the general election season.
CLARIFICATION OF THE CITY CODE
Notwithstanding the above recommendation, we believe the code should be
amended with respect to the placement of campaign signs. The City Code currently
provides that all signs, whether temporary of permanent, must be set back at least
20 feet from a street and may not be placed on a public right of way, i.e. the
boulevard. Since the width of the boulevard varies from location to location, it is
difficult to know whether or not the sign has been placed on a right of way. It may be
simpler for all concerned to require campaign signs to observe a ten foot or so
setback from the traveled portion of a street but not worry about whether it is on a
city right of way.
LMC
League of Minnesota Cities
Cities Promoting excellence
September 5, 1997
Gordon Hughes, Assistant City Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424 -1394
Dear Mr. Hughes:
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103 -2044
Phone: (612) 281 -1200 - (800) 925 -1122
Fax: (612) 281 -1299 - TDD (612) 281 -1290
You recently requested an interpretation of the 1990 law, codified as Minn. Stat. 21113.045, that
allows "all noncommercial signs of any size" to be posted from August 1 until ten days after the
state general election during state general election years, i.e. even years. The statute states that a
city cannot limit the size of a noncommercial sign during the three and one -half month period.
You asked if the city would be able to regulate other aspects of sign placement, such as limiting
the number of signs and banning placement in the right of way.
With regard to the number of signs, I would lean toward concluding that this is something the
city could not legally regulate during the time frame. The statute states that... "all noncommerc-
ial signs of any size" may be posted. Use of the word "all" suggests that the city may not impose
a cap on the number of signs during the election period. See also the letter written on February
16, 1994 (LMC file l OB) and the attached court decision involving Arlington County, Virginia._
I do think, however, that the city could reasonably regulate the location of lawn signs by
forbidding their placement in the right of way. If a city's sign ordinance bans placement of
noncommercial signs in the right of way, I see no reason why the city could not impose this
regulation for noncommercial signs during the period before and after the election. It seems to
me the city could do this both for safety reasons and for esthetic reasons. Minn. Stat. 211 B.045
does not seem to prevent the city from doing so.
Please refer to the enclosed Minnesota Appeals Court decision, Branton v. City of New Brighton,
519 N.W. 2d 243 (1994). I think the reasoning in this decision, would help support my belief that
the city could place reasonable restrictions on the location of signs. The New Brighton case
makes reference to another decision, Goward v. City of Minneapolis. 456 N.W. 2d 460. I have
also enclosed that case so that you can compare the two. Neither case deals with precisely the
same issue you presented, but some general ideas presented would seem to carry over to your
situation.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Since I am not an attorney, please don't interpret my conclusions as legal advice. It would be
advisable to also direct your question to your city attorney. I think, however, my conclusions
may be reasonable. I hope this will be of some assistance.
Sincerely,
William Makela
Research Specialist
211B.04 FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES
1092 1093
211B.04 CAMPAIGN LITERATURE MUST INCLUDE DISCLAIMER.
tion or the pass;
(a) A person who participates in the preparation or dissemination of campaign material clearly identifie
other than as provided in section 21113.05, subdivision 1, that does not prominently include
r History: /
the name and address of the person or committee causing the material to be prepared or dis-
seminated in a disclaimer substantially in the form provided in paragraph (b) or (c) d guilty
of a misdemeanor. 211B.06 FALSI
(b) Except in cases covered by paragraph (c), the required form of disclaimer is: "P1e- TIOSu
pared and paid for by the .......... committee, .........(address)" for material prepared and aid Sunally a r
for by a principal campaign committee, or "Prepared and paid for by the .......... Committee. intentionally par:
.........(address), in support of .........(insert name of candidate or ballot question)" for material candi dat at or carol
prepared and paid for by a person or committee other than a principal campaign committee. _ candie, wheth
the person knows
(c) In the case of broadcast media, the required form of disclaimer is: "Paid for by the or defeat a candic
committee."
(d) Campaign material that is not circulated on behalf of a particular candidate or ballot ballot question. A person is:
question must also include in the disclaimer either that it is "in opposition to .....(insert name letter to the editor
of candidate or ballot question.....) "; or that "this publication is not circulated on behalf of defamatory, or wi
any,candidate or ballot question."
(e) This section does not apply to objects stating only the candidate's name and the of- and which is is of
fice sought, fundraising tickets, or personal letters that are clearly being sent by the candi- lion S bdu21Exc
date.
(f) This section does not modify or repeal section 211 B.06. ion of the falseeir. T.
() History: 1988 c 578 art 3 s 4; 1991 c 227 s 24 History: 19d
X 211B.045 NONCOMMERCIAL SIGNS EXEMPTION. 211B.07 UNDUE
In any municipality with an ordinance that regulates the size of noncommercial signs. A person ma
notwithstanding the provisions of that ordinance, all noncommercial signs of any size may straint, damage, hL
be posted from August 1 in a state general election year until ten days following the state ence, or temporal o
general election. or against a candid
History: 1990 c 585 s 30 struct or prevent th
compel a voter to v
211B.05 PAID ADVERTISEMENTS IN NEWS. or.
Subdivision 1. Acceptance of paid advertisements. A newspaper, periodical, or mad: History: 1981.
azine may not intentionally accept for insertion in the newspaper, magazine, or periodical a 211B.08, SOLICIT
political advertisement unless the words "PAID ADVERTISEMENT," and the disclaimer
required under section 21113.04 are included at the beginning or end of the advertisement. A A religious, to ch
radio station, television station, or cable system may not accept for broadcast a political ad- to buy to contribute
vertisement unless the words "PAID ADVERTISEMENT" are included at the beginning or to buy tickets to ent�
end of the advertisement. g ply to:
Subd. 2. Advertising rates. Rates charged for advertising to support or o ose a candi (1) the solicitat
date or ballot question must be the same as the charges made for any other political candidate a regular contributo
and may be no greater than charges made for any other comparable purpose or use according (2) ordinary bu
to the seller's rate schedule. (3) regular payr
Subd. 3. Compensation prohibited, except for paid advertisement. An owner, pub- candidate was a me;
lisher, editor, reporter, agent, broadcaster, or employee of a newspaper, periodical, maga- months before candi
zine, radio or television broadcast station, or cable system may not directly or indirectly so- (4) ordinary coi
licit, receive, or accept a payment, promise, or compensation, nor may a person pay or prom- History: 1988
ise to pay or in any manner compensate an owner, publisher, editor, reporter, agent, broad-
caster, or employee directly or indirectly for influencing or attempting to influence voting at 211B.09 PROHIBI'
an election or primary through printed material in the newspaper or periodical, or radio, tele-
vision, or cable broadcast, except as a "PAID ADVERTISEMENT" as provided in this sec- authori veor influence or
tion.
a political organizati(
Subd. 4. Unpaid material identification. Unpaid material published in a newspaper. political activity. A p,
magazine, or other publication that is: (l ) in unique typeset or otherwise differentiated from the political activities
other unpaid material. (2) designed to influence or attempt to influence the voting at any elec
History: 1988 r
League of Minnesota Cities
3490 Lexington Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55126.8044
(612) 490 -5600
REGULATION OF LA1414 SIGNS
February 16, 1994
Linda Higgins
350 S. 5th Street, Room 307
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Dear Ms. Higgins:
10B
Gen.'l & Spec. Memo
2 -16 -94
This is in response to your inquiry regarding a recent case
arising in New Brighton which involved a citizen placing signs -
in his or her front yard. I have located the case. It is a case
from the Second Judicial District in the State of Minnesota.
I am sending you a copy of the case, Brayton
Brighton , No. C7 -93 -2677 (2d Dist., Nov. 9,
of New Brighton's sign ordinance which may be
you. However, you should be aware that there
appeal filed with the Minnesota Court of Appe,
Brayton case.
v. City of New
1993), and a copy
of interest to
has been an
31s in the
I am also enclosing a copy of Goward v. City of Minneapolis
456 N.W.2d 460 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990), in which the Minnesota
Court of Appeals struck down a Minneapolis sign ordinance. The
chief distinction between the ordinance struck down in Goward
and the New Brighton ordinance is that New Brighton does not
completely prohibit yard signs. Instead, it limits the number
and size of the signs permitted.
Finally, I am sending along synopsis of a case from another
jurisdiction which addresses a similar issue. In this case, the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States found that
a county ordinance which restricted the number of yard signs
violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County,
Va. , 61 U.S.L.W. 2423 (4th Cir., January 1993).
I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any
further questions, please call again.
Sincerely,
Darin Teske
Research Assistant
encl:
. Imerger mobile homes
riolate zoning
Irdinance
F
Vii''
Imun'
,me in Lino
Called a Jr
aS unable to
the chimney` l
not been
i 11 Lakes
i the home
'cupancy evep
d siding wen
fireplace
casion a fire" -
above the `
the attic and'
.ter reignited
home. The
'cover for the
building
is inspection
ligentlI g
I cv.
iecltywas 1
generally
en plan
is, which
nallevel
,ling level
)Ive "ques-
the evalua
racial,
effects of a
zonal
rich merely
led plan." r
:ing permits
Scretionary i
The
ting a
discretion -
i t- making
nuilding i
that an
:e effect of
nstucuon.
I u rpose was
of the
Ilg allowed
'. Cily of
( :ommerce,
I uary 29,
acts:
Ill IL)58, the Lcbanou fnwnship boatel
c\c.c{ ,tn ordinance regulating nubile
tic, .1111 also approved a plan for a
,"biie horse park that SLS now owns.
tt iward amended the ordinance in
,6,. The city of apple Valle% (successor
i the township) (lid not enforce non -
,IUtpliance with the new ordinance
Yiauuse at the time, the city considered
�z park to be grandfathered in as a non -
onforming use.
In 1991, the city passed an ordinance
zquiring greater lot widths. setbacks, etc.
1992, the city refused to renew the SLS
�rmit unless new structures complied
5th the 1991 ordinance. The district
uurt issued an order that permanently
randfathered in the park and any new
nuctures. The city appealed this order.
Decision and analysis:
The appellate court reversed the trial
:ourt. The appellate court interpreted
nc� . \pple Vatllev Statute as including a
mobile hotTIC as a .Structure. Therefore.
when someone places a larger mobile
home on an existing pad, the pad loses
the• nonconforming use status and the
new strucuure must oomph• with the new
zoning code. The court stated that the
purpose of nonconforming use ordi-
nances is to eventually eradicate the
nonconforming uses. Allowing structures
to be altered in a way that would make
the offense worse undermines the
Purpose of these laws. The League of
Minnesota Cities wrote an Amicus Curiae
brief for this case. (SLS Partnership v. Apple
Valley, C2 -92 -1379, Minnesota Court of
Appeals, March 2, 1993).
Ordinance limiting
temporary signs
violates First
Amendment
Facts:
A county ordinance prevented property
owners from displaying more than one
temporary non - commercial sign for each
Peterson Seed has the right mix for you.
Whether you're seeding or overseeding for
parks, golf courses, schoolvards. athletic
fields, landscaping mixes or roadside mixes to
D.O.T. specs. we'll help make your project a
success from the ground up.
Call Peterson Seed today for seeds that
will help your husiness grow. 1- 800 - 328 -5898
P (q)
PETERSON SF..EU CL)
Helping Your Seed Business Crow.
01942 I'rtrr.un S. l Cornpanv. Ine.
(Iwelling unit. I'he ordinance also
perntined the rlisplav of one non -
commercial nr ..fur Sale." "rent." or
..lease" Sign.
Decision and analysis:
The appellate court found that the two-
sign limit infringed Speech since it
prevented homeowners from expressing
support For more than two candidates.
The court questioned whether the sign
limit was necessary to protect aesthetics as
the count• had not shown anv aesthetic
or traffic problems when the county had
not enforced the ordinance. Those who
posted additional signs had done so in a
neat manner and the additional signs
were not unreasonably numerous.
The county could have promoted its
interest through less restrictive means
and further, there were not sufficient
alternatives for political speech.
Handbilling and canvassing would
require too much time or expense on the
part of homeowners. (Arlington County
Republic Comm. v. Arlington Cly. 61
U.S.L.W. 2423, fanuary 4, 1993). 9
COMPREHENSIVE
PLANNING
SITE PLANNING
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNING
EXPERT TESTIMONY
CONSULTING PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH
SUITE 210
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
612.339.3300
L`r__ -.Z ,.
vS
assignee is secured party of
Supp.199:3): .See (11so Nlinn.
(1992) (defenses against as-
method provides notice. to
and purpose, that a party of
ared interest in the collater-
comparative advantage.
, occurs when the security
and when all applicable
)r perfection have been tak-
::336.9 303(1). On or about
91, GFI's security interest
.st Voyageur when CFI exe-
agreement with Voyageur.
336.9 - 203(1). On N ovem-
filed a U.C.C.3 statement
of National Trade's financ-
� FI, which thereby perfect -
y interest. GFI then as-
ed security interest to Cor-
in January of 1992. There -
,inancers' security interest
. November 15, 1991.
_irt granted summary judg-
x and dismissed Voy-
i. .ow the funds were
who now owes Corporate
its security interest. We
and remand the decision as
Rice Exchange.
II.
the district court appropri-
mmary judgment because
.,r perfected security inter -
igeur. Although Fidelity
presented before the dis-
lnt review in the interests
nn.R.Civ.App.P. 103.04 (ap-
grant review in interests of
)'Neill, 309 Minn. 415, 417
657, 658 n. 2 (1976) (court
not raised in prior ruling
is plainly decisive of the
: and there is no possible
avantage to either party in
al court rule on the issue);
missioner of Pub. Safety,
13 (Minn.App.1987) (same).
tiled a U.C.C. -1 financing
)' oelling Voyageur as
4S.
Y'
w
�s
4-
ti<
BRAYTON v. CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON Minn. 243
Cite as 519 N.W.2d 243 (Minn.App. 1994)
°Coy aver" rather than "Voyageur." Under
:he toctrine of idem sonans, absolute accura-
DeAnna BRAYTON, Appellant,
e.v it spelling names is not required in legal
&,etunents if the misspelled name sounds the
V.
s:une to the attentive ear as the properly
CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON, Respondent.
spelled name. See Fidelity Acceptance Co. v.
House. 210 Minn. 220, 220 -21, 297 N.W. 705,
No. CO-94-252.
705 (1941) (recordation of sales contract un-
"W.G.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
der name House" rather than "W.G.
Hause•' valid notice under doctrine of idem
July 26, 1994.
sonans); State v. Provencher, 129 Minn. 409,
412 -13. 152 N.W. 7 ^r5, 776 (1915) (notice valid
Review Denied Sept. 28, 1994.
under doctrine of idem sonans despite vari-
ance between notice and indictment in spell-
ing "Boise" and "Boyce "). We believe the
City resident brought action against city
pronunciation of "Voyager" and "Voyageur"
challenging constitutionality of municipal or-
are virtually equivalent and are idem sonans.
dinance regulating yard signs. The District
Therefore, Fidelity's July filing was valid and
Court, Ramsey County, Gregg E. Johnson,
perfected Fidelity's security interest. More-
J., granted city's motion for summary judg-
over. respondents have made no showing of
ment, and resident appealed. The Court of
prejudice because of this misspelling. As
Appeals, Randall, J., held that ordinance,
Corporate Financers' interest was perfected
which allowed one noncommercial sign all
alter Fidelity's interest, Corporate Financers
year long and additional noncommercial signs
has no claim against Fidelity. We therefore
during election season, did not violate First
affirm the district court's grant of summary
Amendment.
judgment for Fidelity.
Affirmed.
Corporate Financers has filed a motion to
strike portions of Fidelity's brief and appen-
dix as containing matters outside the record.
See ylinn.R.Civ.App.P. 110.01. We have re-
viewed the documents and the record and
deny the motion.
DECISION
The complaint provided adequate notice of
the claims against Voyageur and the assign-
ment of National Trade's financing statement
perfected Corporate Financers' secured in-
terest. We therefore reverse and remand
the decision regarding Rice Exchange and
%'ogageur to determine the location of funds
Owed to Corporate Financers. Because Fi-
delity was a prior perfected secured creditor,
we affirm the district court's grant of sum -
mary judgment for Fidelity.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and
remanded.
W
1. Constitutional Law x90.3
Municipal Corporations 0-602
Municipal ordinance allowing resident to
post one noncommercial opinion sign on his
or her property at any time, and additional
noncommercial signs for each candidate and
issue during election season, did not violate
First Amendment on its face; ordinance was
content - neutral, it was narrowly tailored to
meet significant governmental interests in
aesthetics and traffic safety, and it left open
adequate alternative channels of communica-
tion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
2. Constitutional Law 0-90(3)
In determining whether government
regulation is content - neutral, government's
purpose is controlling consideration.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
3. Constitutional Law 0-90(3)
Regulation is content - neutral only if it is
justified without reference to content of reg-
ulated speech. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
244 Minn. 519 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES
4. Constitutional Law «9o(:1)
Requirement that government regula-
tion burdening speech be narrowly tailored
to meet substantial government interests is
satisfied if regulation promotes substantial
government interest that would be achieved
less effectively absent regulation; regulation
need not be least restrictive or least intrusive
means of furthering government's interests.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
5. Constitutional Law 0=90(3)
To be constitutionally valid, regulation
burdening speech must not impair speaker's
ability to convey message to desired . audi-
ence; alternative channels of communication
must exist and must be adequate. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 1.
Syllabus by the Court
This New Brighton city ordinance regu-
lating the content and placement of yard
signs did not violate constitutional principles
of free expression.
Mark R. Anfinson, Minneapolis, for appel-
lant.
Charles L. LeFevere, Corrine A. Heine,
Holmes & Graven, Minneapolis. for respon-
dent.
Considered and decided by KLAPHAKE,
P.J., and RANDALL and NORTON, JJ.
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
Appellant DeAnna Brayton commenced
this litigation seeking declaratory and injunc-
tive relief against respondent City of New
Brighton (the City), asserting that a city
ordinance regulating the content and place-
ment of signs. was unconstitutional. On the
parties' cross- motions for summary judg-
ment, the trial court ruled in favor of the
City. We affirm.
1. A "non - commercial opinion sign" is defined as
[a] sign which does not advertise products.
goods, businesses or services and which express-
FACTS
The material facts of this casrr ar not in
dispute. In March of 1991, appellant lrlaced
two signs in the front yard of her home in
New Brighton. One of the signs, which was
approximately 2 feet by 4 feet in size. ex-
pressed criticism of a decision by it district I
court judge in an animal cruelty case. The
other sign, approximately 1 foot by 1'.! feet,
expressed.her opinion on other issues related
to the treatment of animals.
Appellant received a letter dated April 5,
1991, from the New Brighton city planner
informing her that the signs violated the
New Brighton sign ordinance and directing
her to remove them. Appellant complied :
with the City's directive and took down the
signs.
Appellant complained to City officials, as.
P y offi
serting that the ordinance is unconstitutional. `1
On October 22, 1991, the ordinance was 4
amended by the city council. Appellant sub-
sequently initiated this action challenging
certain portions of the amended ordinance as
violative of the constitutional right of free ,
expression. ..
As originally written, New Brighton Code
Section 9 -040, paragraph (c)(8) allowed for
.one campaign sign per candidate and issue to
be posted only . during the election season.
There was no provision in the ordinance al-
lowing for opinion signs at any time of the
year. The purpose statement of the ordi-
nance cited concerns of public safety.
As amended, Section 9-040, paragraph
(c)(16) of the sign ordinance allows a resident
to post one "non- commercial opinion sign" on
its property, at any time'. The portion of
the ordinance allowing campaign signs dur-
ing campaign season was amended to include
the following sentence: "Any sign permitted
by this paragraph may be used, in lieu of
other uses permitted by this paragraph, as a
Non - Commercial Opinion Sign." Only this
amended ordinance is at issue.
The trial court concluded, and the parties
agree, that as amended, the ordinance allows
a resident to post one sign on its property
es an opinion or other point of view. • ' "
Sec. 9 -030 (Definitions). paragraph (u).
1_ _.J
)f this case are not in
1991, appellant placed
yard of her home in
,f the signs, which was
by 4 feet in size, ex-
decision by a district
nal cruelty case. The
rely 1 foot by 1! feet,
on other issues related
nimals.
1 letter dated April 5,
Brighton city planner
ie signs violated the
dinance and directing
Appellant complied
e and took down the
I to City officials, as-
ice is unconstitutional.
the ordinance was
uncil. Appellant sub-
s action challenging
(mended ordinance as
-al right of free
New Brighton Code
ph (c)(8) allowed for
candidate and issue to
the election season.
in the ordinance al-
5 at any time of the
Itement of the ordi-
public safety.
n 9-040, paragraph
rote allows a resident
rcial opinion sign" on
.te t. The portion of
campaign signs dur-
amended to include
"Any sign permitted
be used, in lieu of
this paragraph, as a
In Sign." Only this
It issue.
ded, and the parties
the ordinance allows
sign on its property
point of view.
paragraph (o).
BRAYTON v. CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON Minn. 245
Cite as 519 N.W.2d 243 (MInn.App. 1994)
year round. whether it be an opinion sign or
The following framework is useful in deter -
a campaign sign. During the political cam-
mining whether an ordinance restricting
paign season, a resident is allowed to post
time, place or manner of speech will survive
additional signs, up to one sign per ballot
constitutional scrutiny:
issue and per ballot candidate. The addition-
1.) Does the challenged ordinance burden
al signs may be used to express either a
protected speech?
campaign message or an opinion message.
2.) If so, does the ordinance contain con -
Said another way, the amended ordinance
tent -based restrictions or content - neutral
allows one noncommercial opinion sign to be
restrictions?
posted year round and additional, campaign
and/or noncommercial opinion signs during
a.) If the restrictions are content - based,
the election season.
are they necessary to serve a compelling
In addition to the public safety concerns
cited in the original ordinance, the amend-
ments also list the following purposes of the
regulation:
[T]o preserve the residential character of
residential neighborhoods; to preserve or-
der and cleanliness; to avoid the appear-
ance of clutter; to protect property values;
to avoid litter and the growth of weeds
around signs; to reduce the traffic hazard
caused by distractions to motorists and
impairment of sight lines; to ensure that
the city remains an attractive place to live
and work; to reduce administrative bur-
dens; and to protect the health, safety,
welfare, morals, convenience and comfort
of the public.
ISSUE
Is the sign ordinance, as amended, consti-
tutionally valid?
ANALYSIS
[1] The parties agree that this appeal is
limited to an assertion of facial invalidity of
the ordinance (other initial claims for relief
have been disposed of).
On appeal from summary judgment, the
reviewing court must determine whether
there are any genuine issues of material fact
and whether the trial court erred in its appli-
cation of the law. Offerdahl v. University of
.1' bM. Hosps. & Clinics, 426 N.W.2d 425, 427
Minn.1988). The determination of the con-
stitutionality of a statute is a question of law
,Which this court reviews de novo. See Hib-
°"'9 Educ. Assn v. Public Employment Re-
t'rins Bd., 369 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Minn.1985).
government interest, and are they nar-
rowly drawn to achieve that end?
b.) If the restrictions are content -neu-
tral, do they serve any substantial gov-
ernment interest, are they narrowly tai-
lored to further this interest, and do
they leave open ample alternative means
for communicating the desired message?
See Simon & Schuster, Inc., v. New York
Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105, —,
112 S.Ct. 501, 508, 116 L.Ed.2d 476 (1991);
Clark v. Community for Creative Non -vio-
lence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 3069,
82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984).
The parties agree the limitation on speech
contained in the ordinance is a burden on
speech. The parties also agree that the
City's interest in traffic safety, aesthetics,
and retaining the residential character of its
neighborhoods are "substantial," but not
"compelling" governmental interests. There-
fore, the issue is whether the ordinance is a
content - neutral regulation and, if so, whether
it satisfies the requirements of narrow tailor-
ing and adequate alternatives so as to be a
valid time, place, and manner regulation.
Content – neutral`
(2,31 In determining whether a govern-
ment regulation is content - neutral, the gov-
ernment's purpose is the controlling consid-
eration. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491
U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 2754, 105
L.Ed.2d 661 (1989). A regulation is content -
neutral only if it is justified without reference
to the content of the regulated speech. Id.
at 791, 109 S.Ct. at 2754. The purpose por-
tion of the ordinance states that it is based
on concerns for public safety, order, cleanli-
ness, aesthetics, and administrative conve-
nience. Because these concerns are not re-
246 Minn. 519 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
lated to content, the trial court concluded the
ordinance is content neutral.
A regulation that places a higher- value on
certain topics of speech creates the danger of
impermissible content discrimination. See
City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers fbr
Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 816, 104 S.Ct. 2118,
2135. 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984). Appellant ar-
gues that the ordinance is not content neu-
tral because, as amended, it incorporates a
preference for political signs over non -com-
mercial opinion signs. Appellant bases her
argument on the fact that the ordinance pro-
vides for additional signs during the political
campaign season.
In support of her argument, appellant cites
Go,ward v. City of Minneapolis, 456 N.W.2d
460 (Minn.App.1990). In Goward. the ordi-
nance at issue permitted campaign related
signs on private property but did not allow
signs expressing an opinion critical of the
city government. The ordinance was con-
tent -based because it permitted campaign
signs while completely prohibiting opinion
signs. The ordinance was found to be uncon-
stitutional because it placed a total ban on a
particular category of speech, namely, opin-
ion signs. Id. at 465. The facts of the
Gaivard case are not close to the facts of this
case. The City of New Brighton not only
does not totally ban anything, but carefully
allows any opinion on any issue subject to
the same time frames as political speech.
The trial court concluded the ordinance
does not "favor" political speech over opinion
2. Appellant urges on the court consideration of a
recent U.S. Supreme Court case. City of Ladue v.
Gilleo, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 2038, 129
L.Ed.2d 36 (1994). We do not find Ladue dispos-
itive but simply instructive on the general princi-
ple that when municipalities use their legitimate
police power to regulate signage, that power
needs to be narrowly tailored to protect legiti-
mate governmental interests. Minimizing visual
clutter, maintaining property values, public safe-
ty, the elimination of traffic hazards, are legiti-
mate purposes providing the regulations are
carefully drawn, reasonable, and do not imper-
missibly prefer one kind of speech over another.
The failure of the municipal ordinance in the City
of Ladue is simply put. The Ladue ordinance
attempted to ban all residential signs except for
those falling within one of certain stated exemp-
tions. Thus by analogy, those purposes falling
within the listed exemptions were preferred over
all others.
speech because it does not allow a gi•eatei
number of campaign signs than opinion signs.
Both are treated identically at all times. The
portion of the ordinance allowing campaign
signs during campaign season, paragraph
(c)(8) of section 9-040, was amended to in.
elude the following sentence: "Any sign per.
mitted by this paragraph may be used, in lieu
of other uses permitted by this paragraph, as '
a Non — Commercial Opinion Sign." When
read as a whole, the ordinance, as amended,
allows a resident to post one sign on his
property, year round. whether it be an opin-
ion sign or a campaign sign. During the
political campaign season, a resident is al-
lowed to post additional signs, up to one per
ballot issue and candidate. The additional
signs may be used to e..tpress either a cam-
paign message or an opinion me.ssage.2
That is, during the campaign season, a resi-
dent is not limited to political speech but can
put up as many noncommercial opinion signs
as there are issues and ballots, the same as
those professing political speech. During all
other times of the year, a resident may put
up one sign; either a noncommercial opinion
sign or a campaign sign, with any message,
and multiple messages, if desired. on the
same sign. In contrast to Goward, the New
Brighton ordinance is decidedly content neu-
tral.
New Brighton allows various types of com-
mercial signs such as "for sale" or' "for rent"
signs. Appellant asserts that since the post-
ing of campaign signs is limited (outside the
Here. the City of New Brighton has done no
such thing. The ordinance at issue was carefully
drawn to allow any opinion on any sign at exact-
ly the same times that political signs are allowed.
During the campaign season, campaign signs
and noncommercial opinion signs arc virtually
unlimited. The only limit is one sign per ballot
issue and one per ballot candidate. Between
ballot issues, local elections, school board elec-
tions, judicial elections. state and national elec-
tions, a few to dozens of sighs would be allowed.
In the noncampaign season, campaign signs and
noncommercial opinion signs had exactly the
same privilege —one sign of any message on any
issue at any time year around, with the added
benefit to homeowners that the one sign could be
changed daily and the one sign could contain anv
number of multiple messages.
b
_1P
h
IT
.t allow a greater
than opinion signs.
v at all times. The
allowing campaign
season, paragraph
as amended to in-
ice: "Any sign per -
:nay be used, in lieu
this paragraph, as
►ion Sign." When
nance, as amended,
;t one sign on his
ether it be an opin-
sign. During the
:1, a resident is al-
igns, up to one per
:te. The additional
:press either a earn-
opinion message.'
,sign season, a resi-
itical speech but can
nercial opinion signs
ballots, the same as
!speech. During all
,�sident may put
►mercial opinion
i, with any message,
if desired, on the
to Goivard, the New
-2cidedly content neu-
various types of com-
`or sale" or "for rent"
-.s that since the post
is limited (outside the
v Brighton has done no
ice at issue was carefully
:ion on anv sign at exact -
Aitical signs are allowed.
season, campaign signs
inion signs are virtually
nit is one sign per ballot
.lot candidate. Between
lions, school board elec-
. state and national elec-
f signs would be allowed.
_ison, campaign signs and
n signs had exactly the
!n of any message on any
around, with the added
that the one sign could be
,ne sign could contain any
essages.
BRAYTON v. CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON ,Minn., 247
cit. .519 N.W.2d 243 1%linn.App. 19941
c,unpaign season) in duration under the ordi- pellant and respondent repeat the proper use
h,ulce but commercial signs such as a "for of governmental power to protect substantial
1.e11i' sign can be posted indefinitely, the governmental interests if the protection is
ordinance impermissibly favors some forms reasonable and na►TOwly tailored.
of commercial speech over political speech.
We disagree. Appellant's argument misin-
terprets the ordinance. The ordinance al-
ION%s one noncommercial opinion sign to be
posted at any time of the year for any length
of time. That opinion sign can contain any
type of non - commercial constitutionally pro-
tected speech. That sign, by definition, could
include. outside the campaign season, politi-
[4] The requirement of narrow tailoring
is satisfied if the regulation promotes a sub -
stantial government interest that would be
achieved less effectively absent the regula-
tion. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. at 799,
109 S.Ct. at 2758. The regulation need not
be the least restrictive or least intrusive
means of furthering the government's inter -
cal speech. Thus, one campaign sign or po- inter-
ests. Id. at 798, 109 S.Ct. at 2757 �8.
litical sign can be posted at any time during
the year with no durational limit. Further,
New Brighton ordinances limit "for sale" and
"for rent" signs to one per premises, the
same numerical limit imposed upon opinion
signs and political signs, except during a
short campaign season where numerical lim-
its go up to the number of ballot candidates
and issues. Also, signs advertising garage
sales, rummage sales, sale of produce grown
on the premises; real estate . sales, parade of
homes production, and church or school
events are limited to one per frontage, and
these types of signs have durational limits as
well. Thus. New Brighton has done as well
as can be expected in balancing the rights of
noncommercial opinion speech, political
speech, for sale and for rent signs, casual and
for business sale signs, et cetera.
When the smoke clears, Goicard simply
does not apply as it contains a total prohibi-
tion against opinion speech. There is no
such prohibition in New Brighton.
We conclude the ordinance is content -neu-
tral. We now turn to whether it (1) is nar-
row1v tailored to meet significant governmen-
tal interests, and (2) leaves open adequate
alternative channels of communication.
Clark. 468 U.S. at 293, 104 S.Ct. at 3069.
Narrowly tailored to meet substantial gov-
�nlment interests.
Appellant concedes that the interests in-
,)Ived. aesthetics and traffic safety, are sub -
stantial government interests. See Taxpay-
rie Vincent, 466 U.S. at 806 -07. 104 S.Ct.
at 2129—:30; :Metromedia Inc., v. San Diego,
la:; V.S. 490. 507, 101 S.Ct. 2882. 2392, 69
L.Ed.2d 800 (1981). The cases cited by ap-
Because the ordinance allows appellant to
post at least one opinion sign, which can
contain multiple messages, on one or multiple
issues, at any time of the year, it is reason-
ably and narrowly tailored. The ordinance
contains a modification for election season.
The City can reasonably conclude that the
concerns for aesthetics and public safety are
served by the one sign (multiple message)
limit that is in effect most of the year. The
City can also reasonably conclude that the
balance shifts in favor of fewer limitations
during the short election season. See Go-
ward 456 N.W.2d at 464 (only the narrowest
range of restrictions should be imposed by
the city on political speech, the core of first
amendment protection). We find no merit in
appellant's assertion that the City's reasons
for the ordinance . are pretextual.
Alternative channels of communication.
[5] To be constitutionally valid, a regula-
tion must not impair the speaker's ability to
convey a message to the desired audience.
Goward, 456 N.W.2d at 467 -68. Alternative
channels of communication must exist and
must be adequate. Taxpayers fbr Vincent,
466 U.S. at 812, 104 S.Ct. at 2132. Here,
appellant can present one or more opinion
messages on one sign on her property at any
time, and multiple signs with multiple mes-
sages during the election season. This satis-
fies the requirement of alternative channels
of communication. Although we do not rest
our decision on this point, we agree with the
trial court's observation that, in addition to
the signage and the multiple messages, there
are alternative means to express opinions
such as handbills, picketing, and letters.
248 LVIinn. 519 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES
Appellant argues these additional means of
communication — handbills, picketing, and let-
ters —are not adequate as to her based on an
assertion of lack of time and/or money. The
trial court noted appellant's position on this
issue but properly found that these alterna-
tive means of communication are in addition
to the posting of one opinion sign at any time
and additional opinion signs during the elec-
tion season. Cf. Goevard, 456 N.W.2d at 468
(a total ban on one form of political expres-
sion, namely, lawn signs, was unconstitution-
al).
Reasonable regulation and the reasonable
use by a governmental entity of police power
is as essential to the first amendment and
free speech as the right of free speech itself.
Concededly, the framers of our United States
Constitution and its Bill of Rights mandated
the judiciary to scrutinize the exercise of
governmental police power. But the framers
also assumed that the exercise of some police
power was reasonable, did happen, that it
would happen, and that it would be essential
in a democracy. The complete absence of
regulation and a total lack of police power is
the definition of anarchy, of chaos. With
anarchy the right to put dozens or hundreds
of signs on one's lawn would be for naught,
since anyone disagreeing would simply walk
into your yard, knock them over, and if you
attempted to rebuild them, simply stay on
the lawn and knock them over -again.
The City of New Brighton's' amended ordi.
nance balances the City's inherent substan-
tial interest in aesthetics, residential home
value, visual clutter, and . traffic hazards with
the right of its residents to express opinions
on nonpolitical, political, and business - orient.
ed issues.
DECISION
This New Brighton sign ordinance does
not violate first amendment principles of free
expression. The trial court properly granted
summary judgment in favor of the City.
Affirmed.
w
Q $ RET NUMBER SYSTEM
T
League of Minnesota Cities
October 28, 1993
Mr. Michael J. McCauley
508 S. State St.
Waseca, MN 56093
10B
Oen'1 & Spec. Memo
10 -28 -93
183 University Ave. East
St. Paul, MN 55101.2526
(612) 227.5600 (FAX: 221.0986)
Re: Size Restrictions on Political. Signs
Dear Mr. McCauley:
This letter is in response to your inquiry concerning the
constitutionality of limiting the size of political campaign signs.
It is my understanding that the city has an ordinance which would
require these signs to be six square feet or less. However, the city
has not enforced this limitation. Your question is does the city have
to enforce the ordinance and would it be unconstitutional if they did?
Case law on the issue of constitutionality of this type of
restriction, indicates that the city cannot prohibit these signs but
they can enforce reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on
these signs. See Goward v. City of Minneapolis, 456 N.W.2d 460, 468
(Minn. App. 1990), enclosed. What is not clear from case law is the
extent to which a size restriction would be considered reasonable.
The size restriction in Minneapolis at the time of the courts decision
in Goward was 32 square feet. There is a possibility a court would
hold that a six square feet restriction would unreasonably limit the
First Amendment free speech rights of the owner of the sign.
In addition to this potential constitutional problem, there is a state
statute, Minn. Stat. §211B.045, enclosed, which overrides any city
ordinance_ placing a size restriction on noncommercial signs from
August 1 until ten days following election day. However, this statute
only applies in state general election years. This limited
application gives rise to further constitutional problems. It is
possible that a court would rule that it would be a violation of the
14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause to allow candidates in local
elections who run in the same year as the state general election to
post signs of any size while restricting the size of the signs of
those who run in the non -state election years.
These constitutional concerns are more than sufficient to prompt the
city to decide that the ordinance should not be enforced in order to
avoid any constitutional problems which may result if it is enforced.
The city cannot be required to. enforce their ordinance because this is
a discretionary duty. See McQuillan, Municipal Corporations,
§51.22, enclosed. Therefore, if the city chooses not to enforce the
ordinance they will avoid all potential constitutional violations, as
long as it is not enforced against anyone.
In keeping with the League's policy, I am forwarding a copy of this
letter to your city attorney because it involves legal issues.
If you have any additional questions please contact me again.
Sincerely,
Jonathan C. Turner
Research Assistant
enc.
cc: Mr. Perry Berg, Esq.
s
460 Minn. 456 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
The record supports the jury's conclusion
that Travelers failed to make a proper mail-
ing of the notice of the right of first refus-
al. The first notice sent to Hanson on June
27, 1988, and to Gerzewski on June 28,
1988, did not comply with the requirements
of Minn.Stat. § 500.24, subd. 7. In addi-
tion, Travelers learned that Hanson was no
longer the proper party to receive the no-
tices, and generated an internal memo indi-
cating that all future notices should be sent
to Gerzewski and the other HLF sharehold-
ers. Travelers did send the correct form of
the notice on August 30, 1988, but mailed it
to Hanson instead of to Gerzewski and the
others. Hanson again notified Travelers
that notices should be sent to Gerzewski
and the others. It was not until September
20, 1988, that Gerzewski received notice in
the proper form from Travelers. While
Travelers also contends that its actions con-
stituted a good faith effort to provide no-
tice, there is sufficient evidence to support
the jury's finding that Travelers failed to
make proper mailing of the notice of the
right of first refusal.
DECISION
The trial court properly instructed the
jury that intent of the parties may be con-
sidered in determining when property is
"acquired" or "held" under Minn.Stat.
§ 500.24, subd. 6. The trial court's refusal
to instruct the jury on the doctrine of waiv-
er was proper. Thus, the jury's verdict
that Travelers acquired the property on
August 1, 1983, was proper, is supported
by the record, and was not influenced by an
error of law.
There is support in the record for the
finding that Travelers failed to make a
proper mailing of the notice of right of
first refusal.
Affirmed.
w
O SREY NUMBER SYSTEM
T
Clayton L. GOWARD, Respondent,
V.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, Appellant.
No. CO-89 -2164.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
May 29, 1990.
Homeowner brought action for injunc-
tive relief after city threatened to prose-
cute him for erecting signs with political
messages on his residential property in vio-
lation of city lawn sign ordinance. The
District Court, Hennepin County, Henry W.
McCarr, J., joined enforcement of ordi-
nance against homeowner. City appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Short, J., held that
First Amendment barred city from prohib-
iting property owner from displaying signs
that contained political messages on prop-
erty zoned for residential uses, since ordi-
nance did not constitute valid time, place or
manner restriction on speech.
Affirmed.
1. Constitutional Law «48(4)
Ordinary presumption of constitution-
ality afforded legislative enactments does
not apply to laws restricting First Amend-
ment rights. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
2. Constitutional Law 0-47
Court of Appeals' standard of review
of case attacking constitutionality of ordi-
nance is determined not by broad powers of
city to enact zoning ordinances but by
rights allegedly infringed by city's action.
3. Constitutional Law 0-90(3)
Ordinance restricting time, place or
manner of speech will survive constitution-
al scrutiny only if it is justified without
reference to content of regulated speech; it
is narrowly tailored to serve significant
governmental interest; and it leaves open
ample alternative channels for communica-
tion of information. U.S.C.A. Const.
Amend. 1.
tespondent,
i, Appellant.
[innesota.
.ion for injunc-
aned to prose-
with political
;roperty in vio-
•dinance. The
:nty, Henry W.
Went of ordi-
City appealed.
J., held that
y from prohib-
:splaying signs
;ages on prop -
ies, since ordi-
i time, place or
h.
44)
,f constitution -
.actments does
: First Amend -
�t.Amend. 1.
lard of review
)nality of ordi-
road powers of
.ances but by
•y city's action.
)(3)
.ime, place or
,re constitution -
stified without
ated speech; it
rve significant
it leaves open
or communica-
S.C.A. Const.
t
n.1
GOWARD v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Minn. 461
Cite as 456 NI.W2d 460 (MInn.App. 1990)
4. Constitutional Law x90(1) signs containing political messages on
For purposes of First Amendment property zoned for residential use under
analysis, regulation is content - neutral if it lawn sign ordinance that permitted other
is justified without reference to content of political speech in form of campaign signs;
regulated speech; regulation that serves ordinance was not valid time, place or man -
purposes unrelated to content of expres- ner restriction on speech because it was
sion is neutral, .even if it has incidental content- based, city failed to show signifi-
effect on some speakers or messages but cant governmental interest underlying ordi-
not others. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. nance, and ordinance did not leave. open
5. Constitutional Law e-90.3
Exception for campaign - related signs
rendered city lawn sign ordinance content -
based, so that it would survive First
Amendment scrutiny only if necessary to
serve compelling state interest and narrow-
ly drawn to achieve that end. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 1.
6. Constitutional Law x90.3
City's interest in aesthetics was not
compelling state interest that could justify
content -based restrictions contained in city.
lawn sign ordinance. U.S.C.A. Const.
Amend. 1.
7. Constitutional Law e-90.3
City did not establish basis for ordi-
nance restricting speech where city sign
ordinance did not identify particular gov-
ernmental interest sought to be advanced
and city otherwise failed to present extrin-
sic evidence of interest underlying ordi-
nance; city failed to demonstrate that ra-
tionale behind enactment of sign ordinance
was aesthetics. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
_ 8. Constitutional, Law 6-90.3
Zoning and Planning 0-81
City's lawn sign ordinance, which had
effect of banning homeowner's lawn signs
criticizing treatment of his zoning dispute,
did not leave open adequate alternate
means of communication; messages on
homeowner's signs which criticized city's
handling of his zoning dispute were, so
closely related to their location that no
adequate alternative means of communica-
tion existed. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
9. Constitutional Law 0-90.3
Municipal Corporations x602
Zoning and Planning e-81
First Amendment barred city from pro-
hibiting property owner from displaying
Acting as judge of the Court of Appeals by ap-
adequate alternate channels of communica-
tion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
Syllabus by the Court
The first amendment bars a city from
prohibiting a property owner from display-
ing signs containing political messages on
property zoned for residential use.
Mark R. Anfinson, Charles J. Rethwisch,
Minneapolis, for respondent.
Robert J. Alfton, Minneapolis City Atty.,
Michael T. Norton, Asst. City Atty., Minne-
apolis, for appellant.
Considered and decided by SHORT,
P.J., and NORTON and MULALLv JJ.
OPINION
SHORT, Judge.
The City of Minneapolis appeals from an
order of the trial court enjoining enforce-
ment of part of its municipal code against
respondent Clayton Goward. Respondent
brought this action for injunctive relief
when the city threatened to prosecute him
for erecting signs on his residential proper-
ty criticizing the city government. The
signs violated city code provisions for areas
zoned for residential use. We affirm.
FACTS
No facts are in dispute. Respondent has
owned his present home since 1959. He
converted the house into a duplex in 1960.
In 1963, the city rezoned the property to a
single family residential district. Respon-
dent's duplex became a nonconforming use,
pointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. 6. § 2.
462 Minn. 456 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
which could not be enlarged without city
permission. Over the next 20 years, re-
spondent made numerous changes to the
home. Respondent obtained permits from
the city on five occasions. However, re-
spondent made several changes without ob-
taining permits. This work included an 8'
by 10' addition to the front of the second
story; a bay window on the east side of the
second story; an enclosed room on the
back side of the second story; and an open
deck on the front of the third story.
In 1985, city inspectors cited respondent
for expanding the nonconforming use with-
out city permission. Respondent pled
guilty to these charges. The city also
brought an action to compel respondent to
remove the expansions. The parties even-
tually reached an agreement which called
for respondent to remove most of the room
at the back of the second story. The other
alterations were permitted to remain. The
parties reduced this agreement to an order
and judgment in July of 1987. No appeal
was taken, and both parties complied fully
with the terms of the judgment.
In October of 1987, however, respondent
erected several large signs in his yard and
attached more to his house. Some of the
signs facing the street contained the fol-
lowing messages:
Watch my prediction: The Minneapolis
Department of Inspections and the City
Attorneys Office will quickly force me to
remove these signs. Why? 1. The truth
in my signs embarrasses them. 2. My
signs could muster sympathy for my
cause.
Attention: Minneapolis Dept. of Inspec-
tions; City Attorneys Office; My dear
neighbor: You have made my life a liv-
ing hell for the last two years!
Drive up the back alley & see what
man's inhumanity to man has done to my
home.
To the tree house builder in St. Louis
Park: Let's join forces against those who
are trying to destroy us.
I have been ordered to demolish part of
my home or go to jail! Is this democracy
and the United States Constitution at
work?
If you have had a cruel and unpleasant
experience with the Department of In-
spections or with a hateful neighbor,
please call or write to me: Clayton Go-
ward.
The Minneapolis Department of Inspec-
tions and a hateful neighbor have forced
me to demolish a beautiful addition on
my home which has cost me $50,000 and
two trips to the hospital. The same or
worse could happen to you.
Are you thinking of buying your own
home? Don't do it! Your home is not
your castle. Owning a home could be-
come a disaster to you.
Two signs were attached to the back of
the house. One of them stated:
This was once my beautiful great room;
complete with carpeting & beautiful cur-
tains. Is it nothing to you all ye who
pass by?
A few days later, the city informed re-
spondent the signs violated the city code
and had to be removed. Respondent appar-
ently was permitted to retain the signs for
an additional five days and was then re-
quired to remove them. Respondent com-
menced this action seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief from the city's enforce-
ment of the sign ordinance. The city con-
cedes it would enforce the ordinance
against respondent if he reinstalled the
signs.
Respondent stated in deposition that he
did not attempt to use any other means to
communicate his grievance to the public.
Specifically, he did not write to the newspa-
• pers; he did not protest before city hall or
city council; and he did not buy advertising
space in any newspaper. However, a news-
paper article about respondent's problems
was published in the Minneapolis Star Trib-
une on October 16, 1987. The article in-
cluded a photo of respondent with some of
his signs.
The trial court declared the following
Minneapolis ordinance unconstitutional:
538.180. Signs. In Rl District the fol-
lowing nonflashing, nonilluminated signs
are permitted under the conditions speci-
fied:
:el and unpleasant
)epartment of In-
hateful neighbor,
me: Clayton Go-
rtment of Inspec-
;hbor have forced
utiful addition on
it me $50,000 and
-al. The same or
you.
)uying your own
our home is not
L home could be-
A to the back of
stated:
tiful great room;
& beautiful cur -
you all ye who
-ity informed re-
ed the city code
espondentappar-
ain the signs for
ad was then re-
�espondent com-
declaratory and
city's enforce-
The city con -
the ordinance
reinstalled the
position that he
other means to
to the public.
a to the newspa-
fore city hall or
buy advertising
:owever, a news-
dent's problems
apolis Star Trib-
The article in-
,it with some of
the following
nstitutional:
District the fol-
:uminated signs
onditions speci-
:m
(A) NAMEPLATE
CATION SIGNS
(1) Area and c
There shall be not m
plate —not exceeding
area —for each dwell
the name and address
a permitted occupation. On a corner zon-
ing lot two (2) such nameplates for each
dwelling unit —one facing each street —
shall be permitted.
(2) Area and content — Nonresidential.
For nonresidential buildings a single
identification sign —not exceeding nine
(9) square feet in area — indicating only
the name and address of the building
may be displayed. On a corner zoning
lot two (2) such signs —one facing each
street —shall be permitted.
(3) Projection. All signs shall be fixed
flat to the surface of the building.
(4) Height. No sign shall project higher
than one story, or fifteen (15) feet above
curb level, whichever is lower.
(B) "FOR SALE" AND "TO RENT"
SIGNS
GOWARD v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
Cite as 456 N.Wid 460 (M1nn.App. 19%)
AND IDENTIFI- lot two (2) such
street —shall be
ontent— Residential. (2) Projection.
ore than one name- yond the prope
one square foot in way.
ing unit, indicating (3) Height. No s
of the occupant or than seven (7) fe
(1) Area and number. There shall be not
more than one such sign per zoning lot,
except that on a corner zoning lot two (2)
signs —one facing each street —shall be
permitted. No sign shall exceed twelve
(12) square feet in area nor be closer
than eight (8) feet to any other zoning
lot.
(2) Projection. No sign shall project be-
yond ' the property line into the public
way.
(3) Height. No sign shall project higher
than one story 'or fifteen (15) feet above
the curb level whichever is lower.
(C) SIGNS ACCESSORY TO PARK-
ING AREAS
(1) Area and number. Signs designating
parking area entrances or exits are limit-
ed to one sign for each exit or entrance,
and to a maximum size of two (2) square
feet each. One sign per parking area
designating the conditions of use or iden-
tity of such parking area and limited to a
maximum size of nine (9) square feet,
shall be permitted. On a corner zoning
Minn. 463
signs —one facing each
permitted.
No sign shall project be-
tty line into the public
ign shall project higher
et above curb level.
Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances
§ 538.180(A)-(C) (1987).
The city code contains other provisions
for political campaign signs:
522.300. Signs. (a) Permanently af-
fixed. All signs shall be permanently
affixed to the . ground or a structure.
Portable signs are not authorized.
(b) Political campaign signs. Political
campaign signs are authorized in all dis-
tricts. Subsection (b) shall not be con-
strued as authorizing any such signs on
public property or on private property
where otherwise prohibited.
Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances
§ 522.300 (1983).
109.60. Political campaign signs. Not-
withstanding any other provision of this
Code to the contrary, no license or permit
shall be required for the placing of tem-
porary political campaign signs not more
than thirty-two (32) square feet in area
where the placing of such signs is autho-
rized by the zoning ordinance. Lawn
signs shall be removed six (6) days after
a general election.
Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances
§ 109.60 (1981). Respondent's signs do not
fall into any of the permitted categories..
There is no dispute that the ordinance pro-
hibits respondent from posting his signs.
ISSUE
Does enforcement of Minneapolis, Minn.,
Code of Ordinances § 538.180 (1987) vio-
late respondent's first amendment right
of free speech?
ANALYSIS
(11 On appeal from summary judgment,
this court's role is to determine whether
any genuine issues of material fact exist,
and whether the trial court correctly ap-
plied the law. Offerdahl v. University of
464 Minn. 456 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES
Minnesota Hospitals & Clinics, 426
N.W.2d 425, 427 (Minn. 1988). The nonmov-
ing party has the burden of producing evi-
dence as to all material facts for which ' it
bears the burden of proof at trial. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 -23, 106
S.Ct. 2548, 2552 -53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986);
Carlisle v. City of Minneapolis, 437
N.W.2d 712, 715 (Minn.App.1989). The or-
dinary presumption of constitutionality af-
forded legislative enactments does not ap-
ply to laws restricting first amendment
rights. Johnson v. State Civil Service De-
partment, 280 Minn. 61, 66, 157 N.W.2d
747, 751 (1968). The burden of proving a
need for such a law is on the government.
Id, see also Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414,
426, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 1894, 100 L.Ed.2d 425
(1988).
[2] The city seeks deference to its
broad powers to enact zoning ordinances.
The city's power to zone, however, is limit-
ed by express constitutional and statutory
provisions. Our standard of review is de-
termined not by the power exercised by the
city, but by the rights allegedly infringed
by the city's action. Schad v. Borough of
Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 68, 101 S.Ct.
2176, 2182, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981). Respon-
dent's signs vent his criticism of city ac-
tion. Such political speech is at the core of
first amendment protection, and the city
must "allow the widest room for discus-
sion, the narrowest range for its restric-
tion." See Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S.
516, 530, 65 S.Ct. 315, 322, 89 L.Ed. 430
(1945).
[3I An ordinance restricting the time,
place or manner of speech will survive con-
stitutional scrutiny only if (1) it is justified
without reference to the content of the
regulated speech; (2) it is narrowly tailored
to serve a significant governmental inter-
1. The test articulated in City Council of Las
Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789,
104 S.Ct. 2118, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984) is some-
what different:
(A] government regulation is sufficiently justi-
fied if it is within the constitutional power of
the Government; if it furthers an important
or substantial governmental interest; if the
governmental interest is unrelated to the sup.
pression of free expression; and if the inci-
est; and (3) it leaves open• ample alterna.
tive channels for communication of the in-
formation. Ward v. Rock Against Rac-
ism, - U.S. -, -, 109 S.Ct. 2746,
2753, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989).' The time,
place or manner analysis has been routine-
ly applied in cases involving zoning laws
restricting speech on privately -owned prop-
erty. See, e.g., City of Renton v. Playtime
Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 46-47, 106 S.Ct.
925, 928, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986) (adult films
shown in privately -owned theatres); Me-
tromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453
U.S. 490, 515 -16, 101 S.Ct. 2882, 2896 -97,
69 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981) (plurality opinion)
(billboards containing commercial speech
located on private property); Schad, 452
U.S. at 74 -76, 101 S.Ct. at 2185 -2186 (live
nude dancing); State v. Hopf, 323 N.W.2d
746, 753 (Minn.1982) (advertising devices
near churches, schools, and scenic areas).
We thus analyze each requirement in turn.
1. Content Neutrality.
(4) In determining whether a govern-
ment regulation is content - neutral, the
government's purpose is the controlling
consideration. Rock Against Racism, -
U.S. at -, 109 S.CL at 2754. The regula-
tion is content - neutral if it is justified with-
out reference to the content of the regulat-
ed speech. Id. A regulation that serves
purposes unrelated to the content of ex-
pression is neutral, even if it has an inci-
dental effect on some speakers or mes-
sages but not others. Id. Here, the gov-
ernmental objective the city asserts is to
preserve the appearance of residential
neighborhoods by reducing the visual clut-
ter caused by signs. This objective is un-
related to the content of the signs. '
The ordinance contains exceptions, how-
ever, which permit certain signs based sole-
ly on the speech contained on them. For
dental restriction on alleged First Amendment
freedoms is no greater than is essential to the
furtherance of that interest.
466 U.S. at 805, 104. S.Ct. at 2128 (quoting Unit-
ed States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377, 88 S.Ct.
1673, 1679, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968)). These two
tests appear to have become interchangeable.
See Day, The Hybridization of the Content -Neu-
tral Standards for the Free Speech Clause, 19
Ariz.St.L.J. 195, 215 (1987).
)en ample alterna-
nication of the in-
)ck Against Rac-
-, 109 S.Ct. 2746,
'989).' The time,
has been routine -
ving zoning laws
ately -owned prop.
nton v. Playtime
1, 46-47, 106 S.Ct.
1986) (adult films
d theatres); Me-
San Diego, 453
't. 2882, 2896 -97,
?lurality opinion)
mmercial speech
_-ty); Schad, 452
t 2185 -2186 Oive
.'opf, 323 N.W.2d
ertising devices
nd scenic areas).
Arement in turn.
.ether a govern-
ent- neutral, the
the controlling
nst Racism, -
-54. The regula-
is justified with -
.t of the regulat-
ion that serves
content of ex-
it has an inci-
eakers or mes-
Here, the gov-
:y asserts is to
of residential
the visual clut-
objective is un-
he signs.
: xceptions, how -
;igns based sole-
. on them. For
First Amendment
is essential to the
128 (quoting Unit-
367, 377, 88 S.Ct.
968)). These two
interchangeable.
the Content -Neu.
ipeech Clause, 19
,r ? =i
mss:
+i
AA- ;
GOWARD v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Minn. 465
Cite as 456 N.w.2d 460 (MInn.App. 1990)
example, the ordinance permits "for sale" speech in some forums is most often crit-
and "for rent" signs, and temporary politi- ical of the status quo. An imp! :ial ban
cal signs relating to a campaign. We must thus has the effect of suppres::g view -
determine whether these exceptions take points critical of the government.
the otherwise content neutral ordinance out
of the domain of time, place or manner
regulations.
In City Council of Los Angeles v. Tax-
payers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 104 S.Ct.
2118, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984), the Supreme
Court said:
An assertion that "Jesus Saves," that
"Abortion is Murder," that every woman
has the "Right to Choose," or that "Alco-
hol Kills," may have a claim to a consti-
tutional exemption from the ordinance
that is just as strong as "Roland Vin-
cent —City Council." To create an excep-
tion for appellees' political speech and
not these other types of speech might
create a risk of engaging in constitution-
ally forbidden content discrimination.
466 U.S. at 816, 104 S.Ct. at 2134 (citation
omitted). By placing a higher value on
certain topics of political speech than on
other topics, the city impermissibly sets the
agenda for public debate. See Consolidat-
ed Edison Co. v. Public Service Commis-
sion, 447 U.S. 530, 537 -38, 100 S.Ct. 2326,
2333 -34, 65 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980); Police De-
partment of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S.
92, 95, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2289, 33 L.Ed.2d 212
(1972); see also Note, The Content Dis-
tinction in Free Speech Analysis After
Renton, 102 Harv.L.Rev. 1904, 1913 (1989)
( "[S]ubject matter restrictions distort the
process of self - government and the search
for truth —the norm ultimately underlying
the marketplace of ideas." (footnote omit-
ted)).
Regulations that distinguish between
subjects of speech on their face often have
a viewpoint discriminatory effect. See
Barnes, Regulations of Speech Intended
to Affect Behavior, 63 Den.U.L.Rev. 37,
53-54 (1985); Schauer, Categories and the
First Amendment: A Play in Three Acts,
34 Vand.L.Rev. 265, 284-85 (1981); Stone,
Restrictions of Speech Because of Its Con-
tent The Peculiar Case of Subject -Mat-
ter Restrictions, 46 U.Chi.L.Rev. 81, 109-
11 (1978). This is true because political
[51 By permitting campaign - related
signs while banning signs on such political
issues as abortion, taxes, and gun control,
the city ordinance falls into the dilemma
noted in Taxpayers for Vincent. The city
is providing a forum to people whose choice
of topic it finds acceptable, but is denying
that forum to less favored or less flattering
topics, such as respondent's criticism of
city action.
The plurality in Metromedia, Inc. said:
Although the city may distinguish be-
tween the relative value of different cat-
egories of commercial speech, the city
does not have the same range of choice
in the area of noncommercial speech to
evaluate the strength of, or distinguish
between, various communicative inter-
ests.
453 U.S. at 514, 101 S.Ct. at 2896. The
plurality concluded that:
With respect to noncommercial speech,
the city may not choose the appropriate
subjects for public discourse: "To allow
a government the choice of permissible
subjects for public debate would be to
allow that government control over the
search for political truth."
Id. at 515, 101 S.Ct. at 2896 (citation omit-
ted). Such subject -based restrictions make
the ordinance content- based. Id. at 516 -17,
101 S.Ct. at 2897 -98. We hold that the
exception for campaign - related signs ren-
ders the ordinance content - based. Further,
the exception in the city's ordinance which
allows "for sale" and "for rent" signs im-
permissibly inverts first amendment val-
ues. The city may not treat commercial
speech more favorably than political
speech. See id. at 513, 101 S.Ct. at 2895.
Other jurisdictions which have con-
sidered similar ordinances have uniformly
held a city may not select a particular type
of speech for differential treatment. See,
e.g., National Advertising Co. v. City of
Orange, 861 F.2d 246, 249 (9th Cir.1988)
(city cannot analyze content of outdoor
noncommercial messages to determine
466 Minn. 456 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
whether and where they are allowed);
Baldwin v. Redwood City, 540 F.2d 1360,
1372 -73 (9th Cir.1976) (ordinances which
exclude political signs from residential dis-
tricts held unconstitutional), cent. denied,
431 U.S. 913, 97 S.Ct. 2173, 53 L.Ed.2d 223
(1977); National Advertising Co. v. Town
of Babylon, 703 F.Supp. 228, 237 (E.D.N.Y.
1989) (an ordinance does not pass constitu-
tional muster if it favors any type of com-
mercial speech over noncommercial
speech), affd in part, 900 F.2d 551 (2d
Cir.1990); Ross v. Goshi, 351 F.Supp. 949,
954 (D.Haw.1972) (ordinance prohibiting po-
litical signs held unconstitutional); City of
Lakewood v. Colfax Unlimited Associa-
tion, 634 P.2d 52, 62 (Colo.1981) (ordinance
limiting permissible messages borne by po-
litical signs is unconstitutional); New Jer-
sey v. Miller, 83 N.J. 402, 413 -14, 416 A.2d
821, 827 (1980) (ordinance which limited
residential property owner's communica-
tion constitutes an absolute ban on political
speech); Peltz v. City of South Euclid, 11
Ohio St.2d 128, 133, 228 N.E.2d 320, 323
(1967) (ordinance prohibiting political signs
impermissibly bars a property owner from
expressing his opinion on his own proper-
ty); City of Euclid v. Mabel, 19 Ohio
App.3d 235, 238, 484 N.E.2d 249, 253 (1984)
(ordinance which regulates on the basis of
subject matter is invalid on its face), cert.
denied, 474 U.S. 826, 106 S.Ct. 85, 88
L.Ed.2d 70 (1985); Van v. Travel Informa-
tion Council of Oregon, 52 Or.App. 399,
415, 628 P.2d 1217, 1227 (1981) (ordinance
which contains time limitations on political
signs impermissibly restricts the scope of
political speech).
[6] Appellant concedes the ordinance
cannot survive the strict scrutiny applied to
content -based restrictions on political
speech. Content -based restrictions on
speech survive first amendment scrutiny
only if they are necessary to serve a com-
pelling state interest and are narrowly
drawn to achieve that end. Widmar v.
Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 270, 102 S.Ct. 269,
274, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981). We are not
aware of any case that holds a city's inter-
est in aesthetics is compelling. We hold
aesthetic interest alone cannot be a compel-
ling state interest. The ordinance also fails
the remaining requirements of the time,
place and manner test.
2. Narrowly tailored to meet significant
governmental interest.
[71 Aesthetic concerns are a significant
governmental interest that may justify
banning billboards and signs. See Taxpay-
ers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 806-07, 104
S.Ct. at 2129 -30; Hopf, 323 N.W.2d at 754;
City of Cottage Grove v. Ott, 395 N.W.2d
111, 113 -14 (Minn.App.1986). The city or-
dinance prohibiting respondent's signs,
while arguably serving that interest,2 con-
tains no statement of a significant govern-
mental interest, nor has the city offered
extrinsic evidence of such an interest. In
essence, the city seeks judicial notice of an
unstated and unexplained legislative pur-
pose for an ordinance that restricts speech.
See National Advertising Co. v. Town of
Babylon, 900 F.2d 551, 556 (2d Cir.1990).
It is true that the Minneapolis zoning code
as a whole was adopted, in general, for the
purpose of promoting and protecting the
public health, safety, morals, comfort,
aesthetics, economic viability and general
viability of the city. See Minneapolis,
Minn., Code of Ordinances, § 522.20 (1986).
This does not demonstrate that the ratio-
nale behind the enactment of the sign ordi-
nance was aesthetics. See National Ad-
vertising Co., 900 F.2d at 555. We cannot
accept the city attorney's statement that
aesthetics was the city's motivating pun
pose where the record was silent on that
point. See Dills v. City of Marietta, 674
F.2d 1377, 1381 (11th Cir.1982), cert. de-
nied, 461 U.S. 905, 103 S.Ct. 1873, 76
L.Ed.2d 806 (1983). The onus of proving a
I need for a law burdening speech falls on
`',the city. Grant, 486 U.S. at 426, 108 S.Ct.
at 1894. Because the city sign ordinance
does not identify the particular governmen-
2. In a counterclaim, the city sought injunctive city's true concern in enforcing the ordinance
relief and attorney fees from respondent for was its disapproval of the messages contained
"collaterally attacking" the prior settlement by on the signs.
the use of signs. The counterclaim suggests the
a city's inter -
ing. We hold
)t be a compel -
:ance also fails
of the time,
eet significant
e a significant
may justify
See Taxpay-
.t 806 -07, 104
�;.W.2d at 754;
395 N.W.2d
The city or-
.dent's signs,
interest,= con -
.ficant govern-
-2 city offered
n interest. In
al notice of an
�gislative pur-
stricts speech.
'o. v. Town of
(2d Cir.1990).
is zoning code
eneral, for the
protecting the
-als, comfort,
and general
Minneapolis,
522.20 (1986).
:hat the ratio-
the sign ordi-
National Ad-
"5. We cannot
;tatement that
.otivating pur-
silent on that
11arietta, 674
982), Bert: de-
i.Ct. 1873, 76
is of proving a
peech falls on
426, 108 S.Ct.
Sign ordinance
ar governmen-
ig the ordinance
sages contained
b
.ro
i
�a
GOWARD v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
Cite as 436 N.W.2d 460 (Minn.App. 19%)
tal interests sought to be advanced and the Grant, 486 U.S. at 424,
city has otherwise failed to present extrin- (citations omitted).
sic evidence of the interests underlying the
ordinance, the city has not established a
basis for an ordinance restricting speech.
Except for Taxpayers for Vincent, the
cases holding that aesthetic interests can
constitute a significant governmental inter-
est involved "semi- protected" speech.
Quadres, Content- Neutral Public Forum
Regulations: The Rise of the Aesthetic
State Interest, The Fall of Judicial Scru-
tiny, 37 Hastings L.J. 439, 443-47 (1986).
The city in Taxpayers for Vincent had the
additional interest of traffic safety, an in-
terest not asserted here. The city there
also had a greater interest in controlling
the forum because it was government -
owned and not normally available as a pub-
lic forum. 466 U.S. at 814, 104 S.Ct. at
2133. Here respondent has an interest in
using his own property as he sees fit. The
city has a correspondingly lesser interest in
controlling speech on private property. Id.
at 811, 104 S.Ct. at 2132. The Supreme
Court has never held that aesthetic inter-
ests alone can constitute a governmental
interest significant enough to override po-
litical speech on property owned by the
speaker. We hold it cannot.
3. Alternative channels.
(8) The governmental regulation must
leave open ample alternative channels for
communicating the information. The city
argues respondent could communicate his
message through such means as letters to
the editor, picketing at city hall, or hand -
billing. However, the issue is not merely
whether alternative forums exist, but
whether the alternative forums are ade-
quate. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at
812, 104 S.Ct. at 2132. The Supreme Court
has stated:
That (a regulation] leaves open "more
burdensome" avenues of communication,
does not relieve its burden on First
Amendment expression. The First
Amendment protects appellees' right not
only to advocate their cause but also to
select what they believe to be the most
effective means for so doing.
;Minn. 467
108 S.Ct. at 1893
Several cases have held that notwith-
standing the regulation, ample alternative
channels of communication remained open.
See Rock Against Racism, — U.S. at
—, 109 S.Ct. at 2760; Frisby v. Schultz,
487 U.S. 474, 483 -84, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 2501-
02, 101 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988); Playtime The-
atres, Inc., 475 U.S. at 53 -54, 106 S.Ct. at
931 -932; Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S.
at 812, 104 S.Ct. at 2132; Hopf, 323 N.W.2d
at 754. These cases involved relatively mi-
nor interference with the right to speak.
Rock Against Racism, for example, in-
volved a city requirement that a city -sup-
plied technician control the sound at con-
certs given in a public band shell. The
Court held the law had "no effect on the
quantity or content of that expression."
— U.S. at —, 109 S.Ct. at 2760. Sim-
ilarly, in Frisby, the city enacted an ordi-
nance banning picketing in front of resi-
dences. As the Court construed it, the
ordinance allowed general marching
through the neighborhoods, or around the
block. 487 U.S. at 483 -84, 108 S.Ct. at
2501 -02. As narrowed, the ordinance
therefore left open ample alternatives. In
Playtime Theatres, Inc., the city had
banned adult movie theaters from locating
within 1,000 feet of residential and other
zones. The Court held ample alternatives
remained open because 520 acres of acces-
sible real estate remained available. 475
U.S. at 53 -54, 106 S.Ct. at 931 -932. In
Taxpayers for Vincent, the city had
banned posting signs on public property.
The Court noted that ample alternative
modes of communication remained, and
that no findings indicated that the posting
of political signs on public property is "a
uniquely valuable or important mode of
communication, or that appellees' ability to
communicate effectively is threatened."
466 U.S. at 812, 104 S.Ct. at 2132. Finally
in Hopf, the Minnesota Supreme Court held
that an ordinance banning billboards within
100 .feet of churches and schools left open
ample alternative channels of communica-
tion. 323 N.W.2d at 754.
These cases all have a common thread:
the regulations did not impair the ability of
468 Minn. 456 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
the speaker to communicate the message to
the desired audience. In contrast, a regu-
lation that leaves open no adequate alterna-
tive channels must fail. See Grant, 486
U.S. at 424, 108 S.Ct. at 1893; Metrome-
dia, Inc., 453 U.S. at 516, 525, 101 S.Ct. at
2897, 2901 (plurality and concurring opin-
ions); Heffron v. International Society
for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640,
654 -55, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 2567 -68, 69 L.Ed.2d
298 (1981); Schad, 452 U.S. at 75-77, 101
S.Ct. at 2186 -2187; Linmark Associates,
Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S.
85, 93, 97 S.Ct. 1614, 1618, 52 L.Ed.2d 155
(1977).
These cases expressly reject the view
that a law that limits expression can be
justified merely on the ground that the
expression can be exercised elsewhere.
Schad, 452 U.S. at 76-77, 101 S.Ct. at
2186 -2187. The cases recognize that signs
are a cheap, effective and autonomous
method of communication. See Metrome-
dia, Inc., 453 U.S. at 516, 101 S.Ct. at 2897;
see also Hopf, 323 N.W.2d at 754 (" [t]he
billboard is a unique advertising device
which cannot easily be replaced by newspa-
pers, television, leaflets and the like. "). In
Linmark Associates, Inc., the Supreme
Court held that a lawn sign advertising the
fact that the house was for sale was a
unique form of expression, for which no
adequate alternative existed. 431 U.S. at
93, 97 S.Ct. at 1618. The Court noted that
such signs are most likely to reach the
audience to which the message is directed.
Id.
We think the messages contained on re-
spondent's signs are so closely connected to
their location that no adequate alternative
means of communication exists. The signs
invite passers by to look at the house, and
to consider whether the city treated respon-
dent in a humane fashion. The same mes-
sage communicated any place other than
the house would carry little impact.
(91 The city's lawn sign ordinance
amounts to a total ban on a form of politi-
cal expression. Despite the narrow excep-
tion for campaign - related signs, the first
amendment does not permit such a law
because it fails to leave open adequate
channels of communication. See Schad,
452 U.S. at 76, 101 S.Ct. at 2186 (total ban
on live entertainment does not leave ade-
quate alternative channels). We have pre-
viously held that a total ban on commercial
billboards is permissible. See Ott, 395
N.W.2d at 114. That decision was prem-
ised on the fact that the ordinance in ques-
tion did not reach noncommercial speech.
Id Noncommercial speech, the type at
issue in the present case, is at the zenith of
first amendment protection. Grant, 486
U.S. at 425, 108 S.Ct. at 1893 -94. There-
fore, we hold that the near -total ban on
noncommercial lawn signs in residential
zones violates the first amendment. Our
holding does not prevent the city from en-
acting reasonable ordinances limiting sign
dimensions, establishing setback require-
ments, and so forth.
DECISION
The Minneapolis ordinance is not a valid
time, place, or manner restriction on speech
because (a) it is content - based; (b) the city
has failed to show a significant governmen-
tal interest underlying the ordinance; and
(c) the ordinance does not leave open ade-
quate alternative channels. Because we
find the ordinance violates respondent's
first amendment right of free speech, we
affirm the trial court's ruling that the ordi-
nance is unconstitutional.
Affirmed.
W
) 9 KEY NUMBER SYSTEM
T
Patrick G. OXRONGLIS, Appellant,
V.
Ardell BROBERG, individually and
d/b /a Kingsway Homes, Inc.,
Respondent.
No. C3-89 -1932.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
June 19, 1990.
Employer challenged conciliation court
judgment for unpaid wages. The District
/Zr1A.
oe
lass
REPORURECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item #
V.D.
From: GORDON L. HUGHES
Consent
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
Information Only
Date: APRIL 20,1998
Mgr. Recommends
F—]
To HRA
Subject:
®
To Council
AMENDMENT TO TRAFFIC
Action
®
Motion
AGREEMENT
Resolution
Ordinance
Discussion
Recommendation:
Approve amended and restated agreements with respect to traffic and transportation for
Centennial Lakes in Edina and Minnesota Center in Bloomington.
Report:
At the April 6, 1998, meeting, the Council adopted a resolution relating to the Centennial Lakes
Traffic Agreement to clarify the effect of this agreement on the phase three office building. The
City of Bloomington, which is a party to the Agreement approved a similar resolution. At the
April 6, meeting, Mr. Gilligan advised that an amendment to the Agreement was being
negotiated with Bloomington and would be submitted to the Council for approval. Such an
amendment has now been drafted and staff recommends approval.
Background
In 1985, the Cities of Edina and Bloomington entered into a traffic agreement with respect to the
proposed development of Minnesota Center at I -494 and France Avenue. This development
RECOMMENDATION/REPORT - AMENDMENT TO TRAFFIC AGREEMENT
April 20, 1998
Page two
involved four office buildings with a total floor area of 1.5 million square feet and a 350 room
hotel. This agreement (the "Bloomington Agreement ") settled a lawsuit and an environmental
impact statement contest between the cities in which Edina, among other things, claimed that the
traffic forecasts for the Minnesota Center project were flawed in that they under estimated the
traffic which would be generated by the development. The Bloomington Agreement, which
resolved the issue, provided that following the occupancy of the third (of four) office building, a
traffic study would be commissioned to determine the actual traffic generation from the three
buildings and, based upon these counts, forecast the traffic from the proposed fourth and final
building. If these new forecasts showed that the fourth building when combined with the prior
three buildings generated less than the traffic originally predicted, then the fourth building could
proceed as planned. However, if the new forecasts showed that more traffic would be generated
than originally thought, the fourth building would have to be reduced in size so as to generate not
more than the original estimates. The Bloomington Agreement was very cumbersome in its
requirements; for example, the aforementioned traffic study was to be overseen by Hennepin
County and MnDOT as well as the cities, and following development of the entire project,
additional traffic counts were required which could result in the developer taking steps to reduce
traffic from the site even though it was now fully developed.
In 1988, Edina filed an environmental impact statement with respect to the proposed Centennial
Lakes project. In the course of its review of this project, the City of Bloomington insisted that
Edina enter into an agreement with respect to Centennial Lakes that would be identical to the
Bloomington Agreement with respect to Minnesota Center. In many respects, the two
developments were very similar - each had four office buildings with expected floor areas
exceeding one million square feet as well as a hotel. After considering the alternatives, Edina
consented to such an agreement (the "Edina Agreement ") which is virtually identical to the
Bloomington Agreement.
Development otMinnesota Center and Centennial Lakes
Since approval of the Bloomington Agreement and the Edina Agreement, Minnesota Center and
Centennial Lakes have developed less intensively than their original approvals. In the case of
Minnesota Center, only one of the four offices has been built and the phase three and four office
sites have been developed with strip retailing at much lower densities (and peak hour traffic
generation) than the proposed offices. In the case of Centennial Lakes, the density of
development has likewise been reduced significantly. (e.g. the hotel has been replaced with a
much smaller restaurant, over 400 apartment units have been eliminated and office floor areas are
less than originally expected).
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION - AMENDMENT TO TRAFFIC AGREEMENT
April 20, 1998
Page three
Proposed Amendments
Staff proposes to amend the respective agreements for the purpose of simplifying their
requirements. In particular, the amendments provide the following:
• The traffic counts may now be initiated at any time following commencement of the fourth
office building at Centennial Lakes and the third building at Minnesota Center rather than
following completion and occupancy of these buildings. This will allow the developments
to proceed without unnecessary delays.
• The initiation of the traffic counts and studies are now triggered by the construction of a
certain amount of office floor area on the respective sites rather than the construction of
specific office buildings. This takes into account that the plans for each project have changed
since the original approvals. (Under the present agreement, building four at Centennial
Lakes could not proceed until building three is built and occupied followed by the
completion of the traffic study. This would effectively delay building four until 1999
which could effect our ability to complete south park and collect tax increments in a
more timely fashion.)
• Hennepin County and MnDOT no longer are involved in the traffic studies. This seemed to
be an unnecessary complication.
• The requirements for post development traffic counts and remedial actions has been
eliminated in that it places long term burdens on these properties that are not shared by other
properties in the area. Also, the present development plans for Minnesota Center and
Centennial Lakes makes it extremely doubtful that the maximum traffic generation for these
properties will ever be reached.
• The maximum traffic generation which could result from each development remains
unchanged.
04/14/98 TUE 16:20 FAX 16123402644 DORSEY.WHITNEY 0 002
►1A .NP' : '
THIS AGREEMENT made this _ day of , 1998 by and among the City
of Bloomington (Bloomington "), a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Minnesota; the City of Edina ( "Edina ".), a municipal corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and South Edina Development Corporation
( "SED "), a Minnesota corporation.
EL-W—M161WO
A. Bloomington, Edina and SED hereto entered into an Agreement dated
April 25, 1988 ( "Agreement ") related to a mixed use development project being developed by
SED ( "SED Project ") on a site located generally in the northeast quadrant of the I- 494/France
interchange in the corporate limits of Edina immediately adjacent to the corporate limits of
Bloomington.
B. As required by the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), Minn. Stat.
Chapter 116D, Edina prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and final EIS ;for the SED Project.
C. Bloomington participated in all stages of the EAW/EIS process expressing its
concern with the sufficiency of the draft EIS and specifically recommended an agreement similar
in form to the Agreement as a mitigation measure.
D. In the public interest and in the interest of Edina and Bloomington the
Agreement was entered into to resolve the concerns addressed by Bloomington without
protracted litigation.
E. Certain particulars of the office building development portion of the SED
Project have been revised since the Agreement was entered into by the parties and the hotel
portion of the SED Project has been eliminated as part of the SED Project, and the parties desire
to amend the Agreement to eliminate the reference to :a specific number of office buildings and
substitute in lieu thereof reference to the number of square feet to be contained in an unspecified
number of office buildings and to delete from the Agreement the hotel portion of the SED
Proj ect.
F. The present Master Plan for the SED Project approved by the City Council of
Edina provides for five office buildings to be constructed on an approximately 25 acre tract
located east of France Avenue, south of West 761 Street, west of Edinborough Way and north of
Minnesota Drive in Edina (the "Office Site "). Construction of Building 1 ( "Building 1 ") and
Building 2 ( "Building 2 ") both of which are located on the westerly portion of the Office Site
adjacent to France Avenue has been completed, and the Edina City Council on March 16, 1998,
approved the final development plan for Building 3, which is to be located in the northeasterly
portion of the Office Site ('Building 3 "), and the final: development plan for Building 4, which is
U4 /i4 /yri iUE 16:20 F U 16123402644 DORSEY WHITNEY
to be located in the easterly portion of the Office Site adjacent to Edinborough Way (-Building
4 "). The Master Plan depicts Building 5 as being located in the southerly portion of the Office
Site adjacent to Minnesota Drive ('Building 5 "). BuiIding 5 and any other office building to be
constructed on the Office Site other than Buildings: 1, 2, 3 and 4 are herein called the
"Subsequent Buildings."
1003
G. The final development plan approved for Building 3 provides for Building 3 to
be an office building of 131,617 square feet. The approved Master Plan provides for a 60,900 5-01 ow
square foot addition to Building.3 (the "Addition ").
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above facts and the mutual
covenants contained herein, it is hereby agreed as follows.
1. If the construction of any Subsequent Building shall cause the square footage
of the office buildings on the Office Site to exceed 825,000 square feet, then prior to final
development and site plan approval for such Subsequent Building, Edina shall initiate by written
notice to Bloomington a traffic counting analysis ("Traffic Study ") for the office components of
the Office Site. Edina may initiate the Traffic Study at any time following the commencment of
construction of Buildings 3 and 4. Square footage of an office building shall not include
accessory garages, parking ramps, parking garages, area not enclosed by exterior walls,
mechanical rooms, patios, decks, restrooms, elevatar shafts or stairwells. For purposes of
determining whether any Subsequent Building shall cause the square footage of the office
buildings on the Office Site to exceed 8251)000 square feet, it shall be assumed that Building 3
and Building 4 have been constructed in accordance with the final development plans approved
by the Edina City Council and that the Addition has:been constructed to Building 3, whether or
not such Buildings or the Addition have been completed.
2. A group of three transportation engineers, experts or professionals, one each
selected by Edina, Bloomington and SED shall be organized by Edina to guide the Traffic Study.
This group shall draft and approve specifications for the Traffic Study which describe traffic
sampling activities including count locations at the entrances to and exists from the office
components of the Office Site, count periods in the late afternoon peals period for the purpose of
determining a late afternoon peak hour, dates and count duration in order to fully describe and
determine total Vehicle Trips for the office components of the Office Site. The specification
may include analysis of building occupancy, vehicle! occupancy and floor usage, including
prorating of building occupancy to full building occupancy so that the study represents the full
impact of the office components on the road system. For purposes of this Traffic Study, if the
office components then located on the Office Site are not leased beyond 90% occupancy, full
building occupancy shall mean 90% occupancy.
3. Upon approval of the specifications for the Traffic Study, it shall be conducted
under contract with an independent traffic consultant, as approved by the traffic study guidance
group. Based on the Traffic Study report, the Edina City Council shall determine whether
-2-
U4/14 /ad 1UE 16:21 r:A 16123402644 DORSEY WHITEY
construction of any Subsequent Building will cause vehicle trips to and from the office
components of the Office Site to exceed 2,250. For purposes hereof, vehicle trips shall mean all
vehicle trips to and from the office components of the Office Site, including all vehicle classes
and a1I trip purposes in a typical late afternoon peals hour ('Vehicle Trips").
4. If the Edina City Council determines, based on the Traffic Study, that total
Vehicle Trips from the office components of the office Site will, following construction of any
Subsequent Building, exceed 2,250, Edina shall not approve and SED shall not construct the
Subsequent Building, provided, however, that SED may construct a modified Subsequent
Building as Edina determines shall result in Vehicle Trips from the office components of the
Office Site not in excess of 2,250 Vehicle Trips,
S. If a Traffic Study is undertaken for any Subsequent Building pursuant to this
Agreement, then no further Traffic Study shall be required for any additional Subsequent
Buildings unless the construction of such Subsequent Building shall cause the square footage of
the office buildings on the Office Site to exceed 1,250,000 square feet. The requirements of
Sections I through 4 of this Agreement shall apply to any Traffic Study required by this Section
5 with respect to any such Subsequent. Building.
6. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon Bloomington, Edina and
SED, their officials, officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, subsidiaries, successors and
assigns. The cost of any Traffic Study under this Agreement shall be paid by SED. Once SED no
longer has any rights to develop a Subsequent Building on the Office Site, this Agreement shall
not bind SED, but shall be binding only on its successors and assigns and all other persons who
have a right to develop a Subsequent Building on the Office Site.
7. Bloomington agrees that it will not initiate a metropolitan significance review
or challenge, contest or litigate the sufficiency of the EIS of the SED Project and will not
challenge, oppose, contest or litigate any permit, license, agreement or other documents which
SED must obtain from governmental bodies or regulatory agencies for development of the SED
Project on the SED Project Site; provided that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to
or be binding on Bloomington as to any action(s) taken by Bloomington to enforce the terms of
this Agreement.
S. This Agreement has been formally, approved by, respectively, the City Council
for the City of Bloomington, the City Council for the City of Edina and the Board of Directors of
SED.
-3-
Q 004
vii iii ao lut to: Y1 r." 1b1ZJ4ULb44 vuxstY VVAI1NEY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Bloomington, Edina and SED have executed this
Agreement as of the date and year first above written.
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON SOUTH EDINA DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
By
Mayor
By
City Manager
Approved as to Form:
By
David R. Ornstein
City Attorney
2215 West Old Shakopee Road
BIoomington, MN 55431
By
Its
By
Its
4005 .;
(4 /14/98 TUE 16:21 FAX 16123402644 DORSEY WHITNEY Q006
CITY OF EDINA
By
Glenn Smith, Mayor
By
Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager
Approved as to Form:
By
Jerome P. Gilligan
City Attorney
220 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF ss.
_
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of _ 1998
by and the Mayor and City
Manager, respectively, of the City of Bloomington, ,a municipal corporation under the laws of
Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
-5-
9
REPORURECOM M EN DATION
To: Mayor & City Council
Agenda Item # v.E.
From: Francis J. Hoffman V-�
Consent
City Engineer r -011
Information Only
❑
Date: April 20, 1998
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
® To Council
Subject: No Parking Any Time
Action
❑ Motion
Resolution - W. 78th Street
® Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Authorize new resolution relating to parking restriction on W. 78th Street from East Bush
Lake Road to Gleason Road.
Info /Background:
The W. 78th Street project (which will be a state aid project) requires a resolution
restricting parking on the street. The current situation is already a NO PARKING ANY
TIME restriction. This simply puts it in a resolution form satisfactory to the state aid
personnel.
Staff recommends approval of attached resolution.
w9ti��r,�
0
RESOLUTION
RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON
City of Edina
S.A.P. 120 - 160 -05 from East Bush Lake Road to Gleason Road, in the City of Edina,
Minnesota.
THIS RESOLUTION, passed this 20th day of April, 1998, by the City of Edina in
Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Municipal corporation shall hereinafter be called the
"City ", WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the "City ", has planned the improvement of MSAS 160, W. 78`h
Street from East Bush Lake Road to Gleason Road.
WHEREAS, the "City ", will be expending Municipal Street Aid Funds on the
improvement of this Street, and
WHEREAS, this improvement does not provide adequate width for parking on
both sides of the street; and approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State
Aid Street project must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restrictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, ITY IS THEREBY RESOLVED:
That the "City ", shall ban the parking of motor vehicles on both sides of MSAS
160, W. 78th Street, at all times.
Dated this 20th Day of April, 1998.
ATTEST: CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
City Hall (612) 927 -8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461
8110
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To:
Mayor & City Council
Agenda Item #y.F.
From:
Francis J. Hoffman
Consent
City Engineer
Information Only
❑
Date:
April 20, 1998
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
®
To Council
Subject:
100% Petition Traffic
Action
El
Motion
Signal at `h treet and
® Resolution
New Unite rty
Ordinance
°
Driveway
I-1
Discussion
Recommendation: � (D
Authorize traffic signal (TS -24) project for W. 76`h Street and United Property Driveway.
Also, authorize plans and specifications for bid.
Info /Background:
The two property owners have petitioned for a traffic signal at their driveways just east
of France Avenue on W. 76`h Street. With the addition of the' second United Properties
building, traffic has greater difficulty using this private intersection. Staff has
coordinated with Hennepin County so that a new signal would work in conjunction with
the existing signal at W. 76`h Street and France Avenue.
Staff would recommend authorizing the signal installation and ordering the plans and
specifications for the signal. After opening bids, staff would contact the property
owners to determine if the bid price is satisfactory. The project would be assessed to
the two adjacent properties using the driveway. The estimated cost is $120,000.
Y Ttw'A REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
From: Francis J. Hoffman 1,4-
City Engineer
Date: April 20, 1998
Subject: Cooperative Traffic Signal
Agreement with Mn /DOT at
TH 169 and Londonderry Rd.
S.A.P. 120- 161 -03
Recommendation:
Agenda Item # V.G.
Consent
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA
® To Council
Action ❑ Motion
® Resolution
Ordinance
Discussion
Approve Cooperative Agreement with Minnesota Department of Transportation
(Mn /DOT) for revision of traffic signal lights, emergency vehicle pre - emption, inter-
connect and signing of the east ramp of the TH 169 and Londonderry Road
intersection.
Info /Background:
Mn /DOT is currently planning revisions to the interchange of TH 169 and Londonderry
interchange. A small part of the project involves the City of Edina. The east ramp
signal would be revised with the addition of an emergency pre - emption system. The
estimated City cost is $22,410.00. This funding would be a state aid eligible expense
and thus state -aid funding would be used. Staff would recommend approval of the
Cooperative Agreement.
:OUNCIL
CHL REGISTER
15- -1998 (18:55)
page 1
.HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188014
04/20/98
$432.50
3M CO
SIGNS & POSTS
TP37847
STREET NAME SI
SIGNS & POSTS
2038
04/20/98
$625.07
3M CO
GENERAL SUPPLIES
TP42900
STREET NAME SI
GENERAL SUPPLI
2542
04/20/98
$553.56
3M CO
GENERAL SUPPLIES
TP44267
STREET NAME SI
GENERAL SUPPLI
2705
04/20/98
$86.00
3M CO
Sign shop
T49309
STREET NAME SI
GENERAL SUPPLI
3147
< *>
$1,697.13*
188015
04/20/98
$473.02
A & K EQUIPMENT COMPANY
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
048703
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
< *>
$473.02*
188016
04/20/98
$305.60
A.M. LEONARD
GENERAL SUPPLIES
01382892
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
3141
04/20/98
$93.96
A.M. LEONARD
GENERAL SUPPLIES
01382892
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
3141
< *>
$399.56*
188017
04/20/98
$1,323.40
AAA
License plate 47.288
040198
EQUIPMENT OPER
LIC & PERMITS
< *>
$1,323.40*
188018
04/20/98
$291.45
ACTION MAILING SERVICE
Mail process
72462
GENERAL(BILLIN
PROF SERVICES
04/20/98
$694.05
ACTION MAILING SERVICE
MAGAZINE /NEWSLETTER E
72482
COMMUNICATIONS
MAG /NEWSLET EX
< *>
$985.50*
188019
04/20/98
$191.54
ADVANCED GRAPHICS SYSTEM
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQU
015154
CENT SVC GENER
SVC CONTR EQUI
3289
04/20/98
$564.34
ADVANCED GRAPHICS SYSTEM
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQU
015270
CENT SVC GENER
SVC CONTR EQUI
3393
< *>
$755.88*
188020
04/20/98
$33.50
Aearo Co
Glasses
03947682
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPME
3097
04/20/98
$87.00
Aearo Co
Safety glasses
03949288
BUILDING MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPME
< *>
$120.50*
188021
04/20/98
$28.14
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
TELEPHONE
0:2098
ED ADMINISTRAT
TELEPHONE
< *>
$28.14*
188022
04/20/98
$2.40
ALBINSON
Reproduction
698651
ENGINEERING GE
BLUE PRINTING
2683
< *>
$2.40*
188023
04/20/98
$10.50
ALL FIRE TEST INC
SCBA hydro test
020789
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP MAINT
< *>
$10.50*
188024
04/20/98
$224.00
All Saints Brands
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
2924
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$189.00
All Saints Brands
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
3340
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$420.00
All Saints Brands
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
3413
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$354.00
All Saints Brands
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
3458
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
< *>
$1,187.00*
188025
04/20/98
$337.00
ALSTAD, MARIAN
AC service
041098
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$337.00*
188026
04/20/98
$85.00
Alwell, Anne
AC service
041098
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
04/20/98
$31.96
Alwell, Anne
CRAFT SUPPLIES
041098
ART CENTER ADM
CRAFT SUPPLIES
< *>
$116.96*
188027
04/20/98
$47.20
AMERICAN ART CLAY CO INC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
1178732
ART CENTER BLD
GENERAL SUPPLI
2592
< *>
$47.20*
188028
04/20/98
$21.00
American Express
Food & Ovine magazine
091427
LIQUOR 50TH ST
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$21.00*
COUNCIL
CHE" REGISTER
15 -APR -1998 (18:55)
page 2
CHECK NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
188029
04/20/98
$595.00
American Security Instit
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
041098
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$595.00*
188030
04/20/98
;104.96
AMERICAN SERVICES CORP
Baler service
3432
50TH ST OCCUPA
CONTR REPAIRS
04/20/98
$182.39
AMERICAN SERVICES CORP
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
003417
YORK OCCUPANCY
CONTR REPAIRS
< *>
$287.35*
188031
04/20/98
$524.88
Ameripride Linen & Appar
LAUNDRY
033198
FIRE DEPT. GEN
LAUNDRY
04/20/98
$14.38
Ameripride Linen & Appar
LAUNDRY
033198
LABORATORY
LAUNDRY
04/20/98
$447.27
Ameripride Linen & Appar
LAUNDRY
033198
CITY HALL GENE
LAUNDRY
04/20/98
$80.13
Ameripride Linen & Appar
LAUNDRY
033198
50TH ST OCCUPA
LAUNDRY
04/20/98
$175.05
Ameripride Linen & Appar
LAUNDRY
033198
YORK OCCUPANCY
LAUNDRY
04/20/98
$92.42
Ameripride Linen & Appar
LAUNDRY
033198
VERNON SELLING
LAUNDRY
04/20/98
$24.17
Ameripride Linen & Appar
LAUNDRY
033198/G
GRILL
LAUNDRY
04/20/98
$87.40
Ameripride Linen & Appar
CLEANING SUPPLIES
033198/G
GOLF DOME
CLEANING SUPPL
< *>
$1,445.70*
188032
04/20/98
$24.00
Andries, Lieza
Refund playground
040298
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$24.00*
188033
04/20/98
$12.58
Arch Paging
Pager for Vince
040198
PARK MAINTENAN
TELEPHONE
3142
< *>
$12.58*
188034
04/20/98
$141.66
Arroyo Tire Co Inc
Rubber tees
79517
GOLF DOME
RANGE BALLS
2997
< *>
$141.66*
188036
04/20/98
$327.84
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
GENERAL MAINT
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$74.08
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
FIRE DEPT. GEN
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$19.95
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
FIRE SUPPLIES
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$134.23
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
CITY HALL GENE
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$327.84
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
PW BUILDING
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$187.55
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
CLUB HOUSE
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$277.26
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
MAINT OF COURS
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$40.43
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
FRED RICHARDS
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$40.44
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
GOLF DOME
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$397.69
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
ARENA BLDG /GRO
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$40.46
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
ART CENTER BLD
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$673.32
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
ED BUILDING &
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$21.65
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
50TH ST OCCUPA
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$61.54
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
YORK OCCUPANCY
RUBBISH REMOVA
04/20/98
$68.11
Aspen Waste Systems
RUBBISH REMOVAL
040198
VERNON OCCUPAN
RUBBISH REMOVA
< *>
$2,692.39*
188037
04/20/98
$8.56
ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT COMP
Shoo
T67246
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2610
04/20/98
$157.51
ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT COMP
Radio
T67687
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2738
<*>
$166.07*
188038
04/20/98
$16.57
AT & T
TELEPHONE
031898
ED ADMINISTRAT
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$13.21
AT & T
TELEPHONE
03319
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
< *>
$29.78*
188039
04/20/98
$8.52
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
Pagers
3180068
ADMINISTRATION
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$4.26
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
Pagers
3180068
FINANCE
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$12.78
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
Pagers
3180068
ENGINEERING GE
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$27.46
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
Pagers
3180068
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
'OUNCIL
CHc.__ REGISTER
15- < -1998 (18:55)
page 3
'HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
----------------
188039
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04/20/98
$4.26
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
Pagers
3180068
PUBLIC HEALTH
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$4.26
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
Pagers
3180068
INSPECTIONS
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$12.78
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
Pagers
3180068
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$17.04
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
Pagers
3180068.
CLUB HOUSE. -
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$21.30
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
Pagers
3180068
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL - SUPPLI
04/20/98
$4.26
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
Pagers
3180068
LIQUOR SOTH ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$4.26
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
Pagers
3180068
VERNON LIQUOR
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$121.18*
188040
04/20/98
$5.45
AT &T
TELEPHONE
032498
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
< *>
$5.45*
188041
04/20/98
$57.60
AUGIE'S INC.
COST OF GOODS SOLD
033198
FRED RICHARDS
COST OF GD SOL
1379
< *>
$57.60*
188042
04/20/98
$1,649.76
AUTO MACHINE AND SUPPLY
REPAIR PARTS
,033198
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
< *>
$1,649.76*
188043
04/20/98
$33.00
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE COMPA
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
11866
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS
2754
< *>
$33.00*
188,044
04/20/98
$135..00
AVCAM"
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
041098
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$135.00*
188045
04/20/98
$375:50
B & S INDUSTRIES INC
Fire supplies
10160429
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$375.50*
188046
04/20/98
$48.79
BACHMANS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
1990035
GOLF ADMINISTR
GENERAL SUPPLI
3003
< *>
$48.79*
188047
04/20/98
$260.00
Bakken, Ruth
Tap instructor
033198
SENIOR CITIZEN
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$260.00*
188048
04/20/98
$464.34
BANNERS TO GO
Schmidgall banner
32599
CONTINGENCIES
PROF SERVICES
2312
< *>
$464.34*
188049
04/20/98
$264.91
Battery Wholesale Inc
ACCESSORIES
2952
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
3037
04/20/98
$106.07
Battery Wholesale Inc
Batteries
2975
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
3095
04/20/98
$62.68
Battery Wholesale Inc
Batteries
18803
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
3150
< *>
$433.66*
188050
04/20/98
$237.69
BEARCOM
Batteries
979615
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
2711
04/20/98
$523.13
BEARCOM
E -81 Radio
980599
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP REPLACEM
2712
04/20/98
$273.90
BEARCOM
GENERAL SUPPLIES
985418
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
3046
< *>
$1,034.72*
188053-
04/20/98
$560.09
Becker Arena Products
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
8981
ARENA ICE MAIN
CONTR REPAIRS
3079
< *>
$560.09*
188053
04/20/98
$167.50
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
13875500
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS -BEE
04/20/98
$36.00
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
138.76000
SOTH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$130.16
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
27377600
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$158.95
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
27379000
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
- $63.33
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
27381200
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
- $45.03
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
27401600
SOTH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
COUNCIL CHEum REGISTER 15 -APR -1998 (18:55) page 4
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=----------------------------
188053
04/20/98
$161.70
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
13915200
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$92.00
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
13915300
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$95.84
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
27416600
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$292.27
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
27416700
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$151.66
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
27417300
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$30.00
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
27424100
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$78.35
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
13960900
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
04/20/98
$48.56
BELLBOY CORPORATION
GENERAL SUPPLIES
27458100
LIQUOR 50TH ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$20.64
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
27458500
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$35.00
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
27458600
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
< *>
$1,390.27*
188054
04/20/98
$100.00
Benswitz, David
Perform Edinborough
042698
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$100.00*
188055
04/20/98
$527.18
BERNARD J. MULCAHY CO IN
REPAIR PARTS
3089S
CITY HALL GENE
REPAIR PARTS
2933
< *>
$527.18*
188057
04/20/98
$24.47
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
5403740
SENIOR CITIZEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$71.23
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
5445690
ARENA ADMINIST
OFFICE SUPPLIE
2944
04/20/98
$3.37
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
5455320
ASSESSING
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$93.25
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
5455480
FIRE DEPT. GEN
OFFICE SUPPLIE
04/20/98
$244.99
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
TRAINING AIDS
5455480
FIRE DEPT.'GEN
TRAINING AIDS
2714
04/20/98
$176.79
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
I107741
ART CENTER ADM
GENERAL SUPPLI
3279
04/20/98
$37.28
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
COST OF GOODS SOLD
5450360
ART SUPPLY GIF
COST OF GD SOL
04/20/98
$26.63
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
TRAINING AIDS
5456880
FIRE DEPT.. GEN
TRAINING AIDS
2714
04/20/98
$1.61
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
5458430
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
3139
04/20/98
$14.48
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
5458690
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
3067
04/20/98
$37.00
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
5458710
POLICE DEPT. G
OFFICE SUPPLIE
3067
04/20/98
$235.06
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
5459490
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
3139
04/20/98
-$3.37
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CM543946
ASSESSING
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$148.76
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
5459491
CENT-SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
3139
04/20/98
- $93.40
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CMS43943
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
3139
04/20/98
- $14.27
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
CM543947
POLICE DEPT. G
OFFICE SUPPLIE
04/20/98
$4.43
BERTELSON BROS., INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
5460850
ASSESSING
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$341.87
BERTELSON BROS. 'INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
5476810
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
3139
04/20/98
-$8.95
BERTELSON-BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CM545949
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$27.22
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
REPAIR PARTS
5479600
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
3105
04/20/98
$21.29
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
S001406
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL SUPPLI
3067
< *>
$1,389.74*
188058
04/20/98
$1,025.82
Best Access Systems of M
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
061807
ARENA BLDG /GRO
CONTR REPAIRS
3083
< *>
$1,025.82*
188059
04/20/98
$40.43:
BEST BUY COMPANY INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
00501224
RANGE
GENERAL SUPPLI
3192
04/20/98
$79.86
BEST BUY COMPANY INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
00501224
GOLF DOME
OFFICE SUPPLIE
3192
< *>
$120.29*
188060
04/20/98
$100.00
BLOOD, DAVID
Police service
APRIL 19
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
188061
04/20/98
- $264.51
BOYER TRUCKS
REPAIR PARTS
692635.
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS.
04/20/98
$53.64
BOYER TRUCKS
REPAIR PARTS
697243
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
3338
04/20/98
$26.28
BOYER TRUCKS
REPAIR PARTS
697913
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2949
04/20/98
$42.07
BOYER TRUCKS
Shop
700391
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2964
COUNCIL
CHb_ REGISTER
15 -. _, -1998 (18:55)
page 5
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188061
04/20/98
$297.99
BOYER TRUCKS
REPAIR PARTS
704615
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
3177
< *>
$155.47*
188062
04/20/98
$241.25
BRAUN INTERTEC
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
102168
ST 78TH & CAHI
CIP
< *>
$241.25*
188063
04/20/98
$251.54
BRISSMAN- KENNEDY INC
CLEANING SUPPLIES
507762
ART CENTER BLD
CLEANING SUPPL
< *>
$251.54*
188064
04/20/98
$6,730.46
Browning Ferris Industri
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
040198
50TH STREET RU
PROF SERVICES
04/20/98
$34,101.17
Browning Ferris Industri
Recycling Charges
040198
RECYCLING
Recycling Char
< *>
$40,831.63*
188065
04/20/98
$65.00
BUDGET PROJECTOR REPAIR
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
7055
MEDIA LAB
CONTR REPAIRS
2295
< *>
$65.00*
188066
04/20/98
$100.00
BUTLER, GEORGE
Police service
APRIL 19
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
188067
04/20/98
$212.43
CALLAWAY GOLF
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
90674963
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
8831
04/20/98
$91.27
CALLAWAY GOLF
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
90674971
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
8831
< *>
$303.70*
188068
04/20/98
$2,019.23
Camas
Rip rap II
1530601
GENERAL STORM
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$644.37
Camas
Class 5
1530602
STREET RENOVAT
GENERAL SUPPLI
5440
04/20/98
$474.71
Camas
Class 5
1530602
DISTRIBUTION
FILL MATERIALS
5440
04/20/98
$157.30
Camas
Class 5
1530602
PKBOND CIP
EQUIP REPLACEM
5440
< *>
$3,295.61*
188069
04/20/98
$50.00
CANTON, JANET
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
041398
FINANCE
MILEAGE
< *>
$50.00*
188070
04/20/98
$520.79
CARLSON PRINTING
Business cards
69327
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$520.79*
188071
04/20/98
$950.00
Carrier Corp Training
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
033098
TRAINING
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$950.00*
188072
04/20/98
$127.05
CATCO
REPAIR PARTS
364895
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2947
04/20/98
$16.08
CATCO
Shop parts
365259
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2947
04/20/98
$14.91
CATCO
REPAIR PARTS
365585
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2947
04/20/98
$67.30
CATCO
REPAIR PARTS
365589
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2959
04/20/98
$448.59
CATCO
REPAIR PARTS
365629
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2908
04/20/98
$31.47
CATCO
REPAIR PARTS
163431
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2966
04/20/98
$480.44
CATCO
REPAIR PARTS
365979
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2947
04/20/98
- $150.21
CATCO
REPAIR PARTS
366144
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
3301
< *>
$1,035.63*
188073
04/20/98
$3,730.10
CDW COMPUTER CENTERS
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
7558745
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACEM
2817
04/20/98
$1,200.12
CDW COMPUTER CENTERS
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
7569460
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACEM
2817
04/20/98
$749.62
CDW COMPUTER CENTERS
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
7575268
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACEM
2817
04/20/98
$1,972.81
CDW COMPUTER CENTERS
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
7607346
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACEM
2819
04/20/98
$19.17
CDW COMPUTER CENTERS
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
7617652
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACEM
2819
< *>
$7,671.82*
COUNCIL
CHELA REGISTER
15 -APR -1998 (18:55)
page 6
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188074
04/20/98
$79.75
Chapin Construction Bull
ADVERTISING LEGAL
CB9264
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERTISING LE
04/20/98
$66.70
Chapin Construction Bull
ADVERTISING LEGAL
CB9265
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERTISING LE
< *>
$146.45*
188075
04/20/98
$464.60
Chasten Sportswear Inc
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
72206
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
8825
< *>
$464.60*
188076
04/20/98
$1,216.46
CIT GROUP /COMMERCIAL SER
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
94328
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
8827
< *>
$1,216.46*
188077
04/20/98
$30.00
CITY OF EDINA
Petty cash for V2
040798
VANVALKENBURG
COST OF GD SOL
< *>
$30.00*
188078
04/20/98
$6.48
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LIGHT & POWER
022898
GENERAL STORM
LIGHT & POWER
04/20/98
$100.31
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LIGHT & POWER
9600811
GENERAL STORM
LIGHT & POWER
< * >.
$106.79*
188079
04/20/98
$25.56
City Wide Window Service
Window cleaning
114074
YORK OCCUPANCY
CONTR REPAIRS
04/20/98
$15.71
City Wide Window Service
Window cleaning
114075
VERNON OCCUPAN
CONTR REPAIRS
04/20/98
$15.71
City Wide Window Service
Window cleaning
114076
VERNON OCCUPAN
CONTR REPAIRS
< *>
$56.98*
188080
04/20/98
$18,525.60
CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP
SCBA tanks
41073A
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP REPLACEM
1833
< *>
$18,525.60*
188081
04/20/98
$340.00
COMMERCIAL CONTAINER COR
RUBBISH REMOVAL
50284
BUILDING MAINT
RUBBISH REMOVA
2782
04/20/98
$680.00
COMMERCIAL CONTAINER COR
RUBBISH REMOVAL
50317
BUILDING MAINT
RUBBISH REMOVA
2782
04/20/98
$1,020.00
COMMERCIAL CONTAINER COR
RUBBISH REMOVAL
50331
BUILDING MAINT
RUBBISH REMOVA
2782
04/20/98
$680.00
COMMERCIAL CONTAINER COR
RUBBISH REMOVAL
50349
BUILDING MAINT
RUBBISH REMOVA.2782
04/20/98
$340.00
COMMERCIAL CONTAINER COR
RUBBISH REMOVAL
50395
BUILDING MAINT
RUBBISH REMOVA
2782
< *>
$3,060.00*
188082
04/20/98
$30,402.00
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPOR
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
T7921300
SIGNAL 100 /70T
CIP
04/20/98
$1,758.36
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPOR
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
T7900004
96 SA MILL & 0
CIP
< *>
$32,160.36*
188083
04/20/98
$6,000.00
Complete Energy Solution
Energy partnership
EDN972ID
CONTINGENCIES
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$6,000.00*
188084
04/20/98
$634.34
COMPRESS AIR & EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
045694
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP MAINT
< *>
$634.34*
188085
04/20/98
$3,000.00
Computerized Fleet Analy
DATA PROCESSING
18922
EQUIPMENT OPER
DATA PROCESSIN
9717
< *>
$3,000.00*
188086
04/20/98
$323.49
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
SAFETY EQUIPMENT
00578216
PUMP & LIFT ST
SAFETY EQUIPME
3017
04/20/98
$47.84
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
00579669
50TH ST SELLIN
GENERAL SUPPLI
3072
04/20/98
$47.85
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
00579669
YORK SELLING
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$47.85
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
00579669
VERNON SELLING
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$648.43
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
First aid kits
581701
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPME
3085
04/20/98
$133.00
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
SAFETY EQUIPMENT
583032
PUMP & LIFT ST
SAFETY EQUIPME
3096
04/20/98
$59.95
CONVEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
SAFETY EQUIPMENT
585770
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY•EQUIPME
3152
< *>
$1,308.41*
188087
04/20/98
$102.00
CONTINENTAL CLAY CO
OFFICE SUPPLIES
030063
ART CENTER ADM
OFFICE SUPPLIE
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
15 -..:R =1998
(18:55)
page 7
CHECK NO DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188087
04/20/98
$96.40
CONTINENTAL CLAY CO
CRAFT SUPPLIES
030063
ART CENTER ADM
CRAFT SUPPLIES.
04/20/98
$99.50
CONTINENTAL CLAY CO
COST OF GOODS
SOLD
030063
ART SUPPLY GIF
COST OF GD SOL
< *>
$297.90*
188088
04/20/98
$72.46
Craig, Wayne
Ozalid repair
981017
ENGINEERING GE
GENERAL SUPPLI
3346
< *>
$72.46*
188089
04/20/98
$32.00
Culligan
Soft water service
033198
LABORATORY
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$32.00*
188090
04/20/98
$590.99
Curtis 1000
PRINTING
17934501
ART CENTER ADM
PRINTING
1929
04/20/98
$2,590.47
Curtis 1000
Envelopes
18088601
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
3066
< *>
$3,181.46*
188091
04/20/98
$25.32
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO.
REPAIR PARTS
094342
CENTENNIAL LAK
REPAIR PARTS
2994
< *>
$25.32*
188092
04/20/98
$136.26
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMEN
GENERAL SUPPLIES
276075
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$525.00
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMEN
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
276075
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP REPLACEM
2713
< *>
$661.26*
188093
04/20/98
$90.18
DAVE'S DAIRY DELIVERY
COST OF GOODS
SOLD
041098
CLUB HOUSE
COST OF GD SOL
< *>
$90.18*
188094
04/20/98
$9.00
Davidson, Tammy
Class refund
032598
ART CNTR PROG
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$9.00*
188095
04/20/98
-$9.00
DAY DISTRIBUTING
COST OF GOODS
SOLD BE
28320.
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
,04/20/98
$633.40
DAY DISTRIBUTING
COST OF GOODS
SOLD BE
29780
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$51.60
DAY DISTRIBUTING
COST OF GOODS
SOLD MI
29781
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$655.80
DAY DISTRIBUTING
COST OF GOODS
SOLD BE
29864
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$8.50
DAY DISTRIBUTING
COST OF GOODS
SOLD MI
29865
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$1,466.80
DAY DISTRIBUTING
COST OF GOODS
SOLD BE
29920
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$900.30
DAY DISTRIBUTING
COST OF GOODS
SOLD BE
29863
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$913.20
DAY DISTRIBUTING
COST OF GOODS
SOLD BE
30269
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$1,903.30
DAY DISTRIBUTING
COST OF GOODS
SOLD BE
30455
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$406.50
DAY DISTRIBUTING
COST OF GOODS
SOLD BE
30461
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
< *>
$6,930.40*
188096
04/20/98
$432.82
DELEGARD TOOL CO.
Tools shop
153005
EQUIPMENT OPER
TOOLS
2948
< *>
$432.82*
188097
04/20/98
$55.01
DENNYS 5th AV BAKERY
COST OF GOODS
SOLD
033198
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
< *>
$55.01*
188098
04/20/98
$462.88
Department of Administat
TELEPHONE
W9802172
YORK FIRE STAT
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$153.45
Department of Administat
TELEPHONE
W9802172
SKATING & HOCK
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$139.40
Department of Administat
TELEPHONE
W9802172
SENIOR CITIZEN
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$96.95
Department of Administat
TELEPHONE
W9802172
BUILDING MAINT
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$116.95
Department of Administat
TELEPHONE
W9802172
BUILDING MAINT
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$32.45
Department of Administat
TELEPHONE
W9802172
BUILDING MAINT
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$146.12
Department of Administat
TELEPHONE
W9802172
POOL OPERATION
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$299.58
Department of Administat
TELEPHONE
W9802172
50TH ST OCCUPA
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$406.12
Department of Administat
TELEPHONE
W9802172
YORK OCCUPANCY
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$299.58
Department of Administat
TELEPHONE
W9802172
VERNON OCCUPAN
TELEPHONE
COUNCIL CHE(.i-, REGISTER 15 -HPR -1998 (18:55) page 8
CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*> $2,153.48*
188099 04/20/98 $660.00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAF TELETYPE SERVICE P07MN027 POLICE DEPT. G TELETYPE SERVI
< *> $660.00*
188100 04/20/98 $66.22 DEXTER SHOE COMPANY COST OF GOODS - PRO S 173690 PRO SHOP COST OF GDS -PR
< *> $66.22*
188101 04/20/98
188102 04/20/98
188103 04/20/98
04/20/98
188104 04/20/98
188105
188108
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
$229.81
DIAMOND ART & CRAFT
DIST COST OF GOODS SOLD
171250
ART SUPPLY
GIF COST OF GD SOL 2724
$229.81*
$64.00
Dikareva, Natalya
AC service
041098
ART CENTER
ADM PROF SERVICES
$64.00*
$161.45
DON BETZEN GOLF CO
Course supplies
6974
CENTENNIAL
LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 3220
$164.10
DON BETZEN GOLF CO
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
7164
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR 9483
$325.55*
$45.00 E &S Electronics
$45.00*
$48.22
$48.22*
- $38.78
$121.15
$250.98
-$1.52
- $91.99
$123.98
$1,017.79
$21.02
$285.55
$332.88
$312.70
$148.05
$157.51
$85.15
- $96.77
- $143.73
- $84.92
-$7.13
- $10.00
- $41.58
-$8.20
- $101.70
$366.55
$678.10
$278.50
$757.91
$513.90
$975.14
$48.80
$5,849.34*
E -Z -GO TEXTRON
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
Contracted repairs
Cart parts
ES1801 MEDIA LAB
0021189 GOLF CARS
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 83597
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 89786
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 89787
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 83843
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 83879
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 92549
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 92550
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 92551
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 92556
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 92557
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 92564
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 92565
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 92566
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 94227
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 84257
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 84258
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 84370
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 84372
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 84476
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 84477
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 84496
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 84706
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 96120
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 96121
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 96127
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 96128
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 96134
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 96135
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 96136
CONTR REPAIRS 2595
REPAIR PARTS 2984
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
'OUNCIL
CHE ,EGISTER
15- -1998 (18:55)
page 9
'HECK NO DATE
- ---- -- ---- ----------
CHECK AMOUNT
------- --------------------
VENDOR -------
- - - - -- DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM.
OBJECT PO NUM
188109
04/20/98
04/20/98
$3,534.22
EARL F. ANDERSON
- - - - --
Paint sprayer
-------------------------Q-----------------
7601
EQUIPMENT REPL
EQUIP REPLACEM 2288
< *>
$168.81
$3,703.03*
EARL F. ANDERSON
REPAIR PARTS
7902
POOL TRACK GRE
REPAIR PARTS 3294
188111
04/20/98
$5,850.00
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
284651
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
04/20/98
$1,417.73
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
287701
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$112.00
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
-19641
FRED RICHARDS
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$74.20
$3,544.90
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
288890
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$1,271.75
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
288891
288892
YORK SELLING
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
04/20/98
$2,030.10
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
288893
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$4,218.55
$23.40
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
EAST SIDE
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
292515
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$43.00
.BEVERAGE
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
292516
292517
YORK SELLING
50TH
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
04/20/98
$9.35
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
292518
ST SELLIN
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$1,391.70
$1,697.40
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
292519
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
< *>
$21,684.08*
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
292525
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
188112
04/20/98
04/20/98
$116.94
$116.94
ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATION
ECOLAB
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQU
5121957
CENTENNIAL LAK
SVC CONTR EQUI
04/20/98
$99.15
PEST ELIMINATION
ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATION
Pest control
Pest control
5276466
CENTENNIAL LAK
SVC CONTR EQUI
< *>
$333.03*
5276474
POOL TRACK GRE
SVC CONTR EQUI
188113
*>
04/20/98
$65.18
Edina Cleaners
Dry cleaning jackets
040798
SKATING & HOCK
GENERAL SUPPLI
<
$65.18*
188114
< *>
04/20/98
$378.00
$378.00*
EDINA HRA
Parking permits
040798
LIQUOR 50TH ST
LIC & PERMITS
188115
*>
04/20/98
$21.76
EDINA LIQUOR STORE /VERNO
MEETING EXPENSE
040198
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING EXPENS
<
$21.76*
188116
< *>
04/20/98
$560.00
$560.00*
EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reimbursment
040298
EDINB /CL PROG
RENTAL INCOME
,
-188117
< *>
04/20/98
$99.95
$99.95*
ENTRONIX- INTERNATIONAL I
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
0128022
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS 3161
188118
< *>
04/20/98
$284.30
$284.30*
ENVIROMATIC CORPORATION
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
69735
GRILL
CONTR SERVICES
188119
*>
04/20/98
$911.91
ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC.
Catch bairn grate
3074
GENERAL STORM
PIPE 2918
<
$911.91*
188120
< *>
04/20/98
$749.85
$749.85*
FAIRVIEW
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
6261
FIRE DEPT. GEN
FIRST AID SUPP 2363
188121
< >
04/20/98
$10.33
$10.33*
FASTSIGN
Letters for great hal
139813
ED ADMINISTRAT
GENERAL SUPPLI 3290
188122
< *>
04/20/98
$193.09
$193.09*
FASULO, WALTER
CLEANING SUPPLIES
160
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CLEANING SUPPL 3053
188123
04/20/98
$64.57
FAVARO, BOB
GENERAL SUPPLIES
033098
FRED RICHARDS
GENERAL SUPPLI
COUNCIL
CHEum REGISTER
15 -APR -1998 (18:55)
page 10
CHECK NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
<*>
$64.57*
188124
04/20/98
$100.00
Ferris, Todd
Softball deposit
040698
EDINA ATHLETIC
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$100.00*
188125
04/20/98
$400.00
FIRST TRUST
Fiscal agent
19548
GOLF ADMINISTR
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$400.00*
188126
04/20/98
$119.28
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
ALARM SERVICE
502839
YORK OCCUPANCY
ALARM SERVICE
04/20/98
$71.36
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
ALARM SERVICE
502840
VERNON OCCUPAN
ALARM SERVICE
04/20/98
$420.68
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
Supplies police
505737
CITY HALL GENE
REPAIR PARTS
04/20/98
$951.05
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
ALARM SERVICE
500213
ARENA BLDG /GRO
ALARM SERVICE
04/20/98
$82.32
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
503924
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$111.00
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
503175
BUILDING MAINT
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$1,755.69*
188127
04/20/98
$81.12
FOOT -JOY
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
5526861
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
8830
< *>
$81.12*
188128
04/20/98
$343.75
FORMS GROUP, THE
PRINTING
2203
POLICE DEPT. G
PRINTING
7594
04/20/98
$382.21
FORMS GROUP, THE
PRINTING.
2204.
POLICE DEPT. G
PRINTING
7594
04/20/98
$366.56
FORMS GROUP, THE
PRINTING
2206
POLICE DEPT. G
PRINTING
7594
04/20/98
$108.63
FORMS GROUP, THE
PRINTING
2207
POLICE DEPT. G
PRINTING
7594
04/20/98
$249.83
FORMS GROUP, THE
PRINTING
2205
POLICE DEPT. G
PRINTING
7594
< *>
$1,450.98*
188129
04/20/98
$100.60
Fowler Electric
REPAIR PARTS
52170100
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
2480
04/20/98
$29.15
Fowler Electric
REPAIR PARTS
52274900
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
3207
< *>
$129.75*
188130
04/20/98
$99.00
FRED PRYOR SEMINARS
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
6307745
ART CENTER ADM
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$99.00*
188131
04/20/98
$40.00
FREEWAY RADIATOR SERVICE
CONTRACTED REPAIRS.
22102
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS
1968
04/20/98
$495.23
FREEWAY RADIATOR SERVICE
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
22125
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS
2114
< *>
$535.23*
188132
04/20/98
$327.74
FRESCO
Elec supplies
42808
PUMP & LIFT ST
SAFETY EQUIPME
9740
< *>
$327.74*
188133
04/20/98
$2,495.00
Fritz Counter Tops Inc
Counter install
813
SWIM PROG
MACH. & EQUIP
2670
< *>
$2,495.00*
188134
04/20/98
$998.95
Frontline Plus Fire & Re
Fire gear Brooks
5955
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP REPLACEM
3044
< *>
$998.95*
188135
04/20/98
$174.26
Fuel Oil Service Co Inc
TIRES & TUBES
14062
EQUIPMENT OPER
TIRES & TUBES
2613
< *>
$174.26*
188136
04/20/98
$24.16
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
Uniforms
046120
PUMP & LIFT ST
UNIF ALLOW
3260
< *>
$24.16*
188137
04/20/98
$519.06
G & K SERVICES
LAUNDRY
033198
GENERAL MAINT
LAUNDRY
04/20/98
$45.60
G & K SERVICES
LAUNDRY
033198
STREET REVOLVI
LAUNDRY
04/20/98
$41.56
G & K SERVICES
LAUNDRY
033198
CITY HALL GENE
LAUNDRY
COUNCIL
Cl REGISTER
$74.23
1. R -1998 (18:55)
2520
< *>
49528966
page 11
CHECK NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
188137
04/20/98
$174.98
G & K SERVICES
CLEANING SUPPLIES
033198
PW BUILDING
CLEANING SUPPL.
TOOLS
04/20/98
04/20/98
$383.35
G & K SERVICES
GASOLINE
033198
EQUIPMENT OPER
GASOLINE
04/20/98
$159.92
G & K SERVICES
LAUNDRY
033198
BUILDING MAINT
LAUNDRY
04/20/98
$183.45
G & K SERVICES
LAUNDRY
033198
ARENA BLDG /GRO
LAUNDRY
$148.00
Grand Pere Wines
04/20/98
$108.44
G & K SERVICES
LAUNDRY
033198
PUMP & LIFT ST
LAUNDRY
04/20/98
< *>
GRAPE BEGINNINGS
$1,616.36*
04/20/98
$806.00
GRAPE BEGINNINGS
INC
188138
04/20/98
$2,720.00
G.L. CONTRACTING INC
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
036329
PKBOND CIP
EQUIP REPLACEM
2866
< *>
04/20/98
$12,543.05
G.L. CONTRACTING INC
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
36334
PKBOND CIP
EQUIP REPLACEM
2898
< *>
$15,263.05*
$894.61
GRIGGS COOPER &
CO.
188139
04/20/98
$789.50
Gale -Tec Engineering
Inc CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
261
ST 78TH & CAHI
CIP
< *>
$789.50*
188140
04/20/98
$916.89
GALL'S INC
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
52149735
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW
2467
< *>
$916.89*
188141
04/20/98
$2,976.00
GENERAL SPORTS
Coach pitch uniforms
47865
ATHLETIC ACTIV
GENERAL SUPPLI
1519
< *>
$2,976.00*
188142
04/20/98
$168.03
G1enGate Apparel Inc
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
516264
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
8834
< *>
$168.03*
188143
04/20/98
$133.00
GOLFCRAFT
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
10692
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
9488
04/20/98
04/20/98
$153.00
$270.00
GOLFCRAFT
GOLFCRAFT
Rental clubs
10710
RANGE
GENERAL SUPPLI
9488
04/20/98
$1,350.00
GOLFCRAFT.
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
10716
10719
PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
9486
< *>
$1,906.00*
COST OF GDS -PR
9488
188144
04/20/98
$175.00
GOPHER STATE 1 CALL
Fax locates
8030251
SUPERV. & OVRH
GOPHER STATE
3339
< *>
$175.00*
188145
04/20/98
$74.23
GRAFIX SHOPPE
2520
< *>
49528966
$74.23*
TOOLS
3091
188146
04/20/98
$40.45
GRAINGER
3232
GENERAL SUPPLIES
04/20/98
$522.01
GRAINGER
3233
GENERAL SUPPLIES
04/20/98
$26.94
GRAINGER
3232
TOOLS
04/20/98
$47.84
GRAINGER
3157
04/20/98
$64.28
GRAINGER
04/20/98
$314.33
GRAINGER
< *>
$1,015.85*
188147
04/20/98
- $10.00
Grand Pere Wines
Inc
04/20/98
$148.00
Grand Pere Wines
Inc
< *>
$138.00*
188148
04/20/98
$658.00
GRAPE BEGINNINGS
INC
04/20/98
$806.00
GRAPE BEGINNINGS
INC
04/20/98
$428.00
GRAPE BEGINNINGS
INC
04/20/98
$357.00
GRAPE BEGINNINGS
INC
< *>
$2,249.00*
188150
04/20/98
$214.97
GRIGGS COOPER &
CO.
04/20/98
$894.61
GRIGGS COOPER &
CO.
CONTRACTED REPAIRS 27076 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 3168
Greenhouse repair
par 49878351
BUILDING MAINT
REPAIR PARTS
2520
Rakes
49528966
GENERAL MAINT
TOOLS
3091
GENERAL SUPPLIES
49529733
CITY HALL GENE
GENERAL SUPPLI
3232
GENERAL SUPPLIES
49529750
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
3233
GENERAL SUPPLIES
49529761
ART CENTER BLD
GENERAL SUPPLI
3232
TOOLS
49878740
GENERAL MAINT
TOOLS
3157
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 1159
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 5216
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 18490
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 18570
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 18638
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 18685
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 89789
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 89791
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU
COUNCIL
CHECn REGISTER
15- APR -1998
(18:55)
page 12
CHECK NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
188150
04/20/98
$36.83
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
89792
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$2,011.13
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
89799
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$107.75
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
91098
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$1,601.40
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
92553
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$561.01
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
925555
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$3,182.41
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
92559
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$23.30
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
92561
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$2,543.07
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
92562
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$244.65
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
92563
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GDS MIX
04/20/98
$2,444.66
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
92567
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$104.04
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
92568
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$49.80
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
92571
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$1,493.40
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
92572
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$1,354.98
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
93534
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$636.32
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
96122
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$1,104.94
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
96126
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$2,040.33
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
96130
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$917.55
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
96132
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$3,614.44
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
96137
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$85.54
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
96141
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$1,589.51
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
96142
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$259.65
GRIGGS
COOPER
&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
96567
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
< *>
$27,116.29*
188151
04/20/98
$157.16
GRUBERS
POWER
EQUIPMENT
Tractor
attachment
pa
8952
GENERAL TURF C
GENERAL
SUPPLI
2839
< *>
$157.16*
188152
04/20/98
$1,486.07
Hawkins
Water
Treatment
WATER TREATMENT SUPPL
51207
WATER TREATMEN
WATER TRTMT
SU
5256
< *>
$1,486.07*
188153
04/20/98
$701.85
Heartland
Accoustics
REPAIR PARTS
980308
CITY HALL GENE
REPAIR
PARTS
2890
< *>
$701.85*
188154
04/20/98
$93.25
HEDBERG
AGGREGATES
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
58702
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL
SUPPLI
2827
< *>
$93.25*
.
188155
04/20/98
$134.10
HEIMARK
FOODS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
041998
GRILL
COST OF
GD
SOL
1385
< *>
$134.10*
188156
04/20/98
$944.25
HENNEPIN COUNTY
TREASURE
Assest service
charge
032398
SPECIAL ASSESS
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$944.25*
188157
04/20/98
$6,810.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY
TREASURE
CONSTR.
IN PROGRESS
28122
STREET IMPROVE
CIP
< *>
$6.,810.00*
188158
04/20/98
$100.00
HOFFMAN,
WILLIAM
Police service
APRIL 19
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
188159
04/20/98
$25.80
Home Juice
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
12393
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GDS
MIX
< *>
$25.80*
188160
04/20/98
$150.64
HORIZON
COMMERCIAL
POOL
CHEMICALS
17243
POOL TRACK GRE
CHEMICALS
2832
< *>
$150.64*
188161
04/20/98
$36.18
HOSE INC.
Air hose
52885
BUILDINGS
EQUIP
MAINT
3231
COUNCIL
CH. REGISTER
15 ; -1998 (18:55)
page 13
CHECK NO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------------------------------
-DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
188161
04/20/98
$60.71
HOSE INC.
Hose
53037
GENERAL STORM
GENERAL SUPPLI
2940
< *>
$96.89*
188162
04/20/98
$45.18
HUEBSCH
Towels, rugs
516028
POOL TRACK GRE
SVC CONTR EQUI
04/20/98
$58.27
HUEBSCH
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQU
520631
POOL TRACK GRE
SVC CONTR EQUI
< *>
$103.45*
168163
04/20/98
$1,075.00
HUNERBERG CONSTRUCTION C
Change order
031998
PKBOND CIP
EQUIP REPLACEM
< *>
$1,075.00*
188164
04/20/98
$4,179.57
HYDRO SUPPLY CO
INVENTORY WATER METER
12583
UTILITY PROG
INVENTORY WATE
6388
04/20/98
$1,596.81
HYDRO SUPPLY CO
INVENTORY WATER METER
12663
UTILITY PROG
INVENTORY WATE
6388
< *>
$5,776.38*
188165
04/20/98
$236.33
Ikon Office Solutions
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
100891
ART CENTER ADM
EQUIP RENTAL
< *>
$236.33*
188166
04/20/98
$54.50
Independent School Dist
Overtime
812
EDINA ATHLETIC
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$54.50*
188167
04/20/98
$185.50
INTERLACHEN TRAVEL
Travel
78647
FINANCE
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$185.50*
188168
04/20/98
$318.38
INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESE
REPAIR PARTS
00119699
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2963
< *>
$318.38*
188169
04/20/98
$69.22
IOS CAPITAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
40289374
ART CENTER ADM
EQUIP RENTAL
< *>
$69.22*
188170
04/20/98
- $287.44
J.H. LARSON ELECTRICAL C
REPAIR PARTS
45081300
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
04/20/98
04/20/98
$4.56
J.H. LARSON ELECTRICAL C
GENERAL SUPPLIES
40595480
ST LIGHTING OR
GENERAL SUPPLI
3099
04/20/98
$295.84
$286.13
J.H. LARSON ELECTRICAL C
J.H.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
40595530
ST LIGHTING OR
GENERAL SUPPLI
3099
LARSON ELECTRICAL C
GENERAL SUPPLIES
40597660
ART CENTER BLD
GENERAL SUPPLI
3146
< *>
$299.09*
188171
04/20/98
$100.00
JAMES, WILLIAM F
Police service
APRIL 19
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
188172
04/20/98
$624.00
Jeane Thorne Inc
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
00194526
INSPECTIONS
PROF SERVICES
04/20/98
$1,147.33
Jeane Thorne Inc
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
194794
INSPECTIONS
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$1,771.33*
188173
*>
04/20/98
$990.75
JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY
Fire gear #68
46516
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP REPLACEM
9421
<
$990.75*
188175
04/20/98
04/20/98
$59.21
$17.64
JERRY'S HARDWARE
JERRY'S
GENERAL SUPPLIES
033198
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$41.26
HARDWARE
JERRY'S }HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
033198
ST LIGHTING OR
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$19.53
JERRY'S HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
033198
033198
STREET NAME SI
STREET REVOLVI
GENERAL SUPPLI
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
04/20/98
$42.49
$170:75
JERRY'S HARDWARE
JERRY'S
GENERAL SUPPLIES
033196
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL SUPPLI
.
04/20/98
$5.43
HARDWARE
JERRY'S HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
033198
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$216.13
JERRY'S HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
033198
033198
PW BUILDING
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
04/20/98
$192.50
$103.41
JERRY'S HARDWARE
JERRY'S
GENERAL SUPPLIES
033198
GOLF ADMINISTR
GENERAL SUPPLI
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
033198
RIC14ARDS MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
COUNCIL CHE" REGISTER 15- NPR - 1998 (18:55) page 14
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT.
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188175
04/20/98
$10.89
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
03.3198
GOLF DOME
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$2.90
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
033198
ARENA ICE MAIN
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$383.55
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
033198
ED BUILDING-&
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$89.76
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
033198
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$18.20
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
033198
50TH ST OCCUPA
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$5.96
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
033198
YORK OCCUPANCY
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$1,379.61*
188176
04/20/98
$1,642.23
JERRY'S
PRINTING
PRINTING
A4714
POOL ADMIN
PRINTING
< *>
$1,642.23*
188177
04/20/98
$737.56
JERRY'S
TRANSMISSION SER
392 damage reapirs
I4835
FIRE DEPT. GEN
REPAIR
PARTS
3051
< *>
$737.56*
188178
04/20/98
$181.05
JESSEN
PRESS
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
35046
CITY HALL GENE
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$181.05*
188179
04/20/98
$10,564.80
JIM HATCH SALES
Broom sticks
8445
STREET CLEANIN
BROOMS
2509
04/20/98
$567.28
JIM HATCH SALES
TOOLS
8450
GENERAL MAINT
TOOLS
2517
< *>
$11,132.08*
188180
04/20/98
$39.98
Johns,-Richard
LAUNDRY
040798
POOL TRACK GRE
LAUNDRY
< *>
$39.98*
188181
04/20/98
$96.86
Johnson
Wholesale Florio
FERTILIZER
77824
POOL TRACK GRE
FERTILIZER
3130
< *>
$96.86*
188184
04/20/98
-$2.98
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
56171
VERNON SELLING
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
-$8.00
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
56172
VERNON SELLING
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
$2,313.51
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
823355
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$627.72
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
823356
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
$1,483.84
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
823360
VERNON SELLING
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
$335.74
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
823994
VERNON.SELLING
CST OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
-$5.62
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
56170
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
- $30.05
- JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
56512
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
- $67.65
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
56513
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
- $39.66
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
56514
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$74.80
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
825820
VERNON SELLING
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
$2,535.19
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST of
GOODS
SOLD
LI
825821
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$1,167.21
JOHNSON.WINE
CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
825822
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
$5,256.35
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
825823
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$1,197.10
JOHNSON
WINE.CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
825824
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
$4,479.31
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
825825
VERNON SELLING
CST OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$1,843.55
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
825826
VERNON SELLING
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
- $20.60
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
57409
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
- $20.60
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
57410
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
$5,228.35
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
828525
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$2,124.35
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
828526
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
$1,609.28
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
828602
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$1,950.27
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
828603
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
$5,289.18
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
828604
VERNON SELLING
CST OF
GD
LIQU
04/20/98
$2,508.24
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
828605
VERNON SELLING
CST OF
GD
WINE
04/20/98
$544.17
JOHNSON
WINE CO.
COST OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
828907
VERNON SELLING
CST OF
GD
WINE
< *>
$40,373.00*
COUNCIL
CHL . REGISTER
15- x -1998 (18:55)
page 15
CHECK NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
188185
04/20/98
$24.50
JOHNSON, NAOMI
Art work sold
041098
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
04/20/98
$44.96
JOHNSON, NAOMI
OFFICE SUPPLIES
041098
ART CENTER ADM
OFFICE SUPPLIE
04/20/98
$84.52
JOHNSON, NAOMI
CRAFT SUPPLIES
041098
ART CENTER ADM
CRAFT SUPPLIES
04/20/98
$82.16
JOHNSON, NAOMI
GENERAL SUPPLIES
041098
ART CENTER BLD
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$236.14*
188186
04/20/98
$100.00
JOHNSON, WALTER
Police service
APRIL 19
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
188187
04/20/98
$170.00
JORDAN BEVERAGE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
46891
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
< *>
$170.00*
188188
04/20/98
$340.36
JP FOODSERVICES INC
CLEANING SUPPLIES
040198
GRILL
CLEANING SUPPL
04/20/98
$141.73
JP FOODSERVICES INC
CLEANING SUPPLIES
040198
GRILL
CLEANING SUPPL
04/20/98
$741.56
JP FOODSERVICES INC
COST OF GOODS SOLD
040198
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
04/20/98
$94.16
JP FOODSERVICES INC
COST OF GOODS SOLD
040198
FRED RICHARDS
COST OF GD SOL
< *>
$1,317.81*
188189
04/20/98
$6.50
JULIEN, DIANE
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
040798
TRAINING
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$6.50*
188190
04/20/98
$328.08
JUSTUS LUMBER
Lumber
21243
CENTENNIAL LAK
PAINT
3069
04/20/98
$1,195.29
JUSTUS LUMBER
Lumber
31787
MEDIA LAB CONS
CIP
9035
04/20/98
$164.01
JUSTUS LUMBER
Lumber
21931
MEDIA LAB CONS
CIP
9035
04/20/98
$123.93
JUSTUS LUMBER
Lumber
22010
MEDIA LAB CONS
CIP
9035
04/20/98
$10.05
JUSTUS LUMBER
Lumber
22017
MEDIA LAB CONS
CIP
9035
< *>
$1,821.36*
188191
04/20/98
$112.50
KAHN, DEBORAH MORSE
MAGAZINE /NEWSLETTER E
040398
COMMUNICATIONS
MAG /NEWSLET EX
< *>
$112.50*
188192
04/20/98
$50.00
Karen Lennan & Chris Tou
Room canellation
040198
GOLF PROG
RENTAL OF PROP
< *>
.$50.00*
188193
04/20/98
$75.00
Keenan, Lori
AC service
041098
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$75.00*
188194
04/20/98
$88.80
Kiwi Kai Imports Inc
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
87257
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
- $72.80
Kiwi Kai Imports Inc
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
CM3239
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$902.70
Kiwi Kai Imports Inc
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
89053
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$1,073.05
Kiwi Kai Imports Inc
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
89346
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$758.25
Kiwi Kai Imports Inc
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
89352
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$880.10
Kiwi Kai Imports Inc
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
89354
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$885.60
Kiwi Kai Imports Inc
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
88548
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$863.00
Kiwi Kai Imports Inc
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
89617
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$1,203.60
Kiwi Kai Imports Inc
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
89620
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
< *>
$6,582.30*
188196
04/20/98
$154.39
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
317948
ART CENTER BLD
GENERAL SUPPLI
2868
04/20/98
$137.23
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
Lumber
198711
CENTENNIAL LAK
PAINT
2913
04/20/98
$21.27
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
198715
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2913
04/20/98
$162.82
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
PAINT
318060
ARENA BLDG /GRO
PAINT
2907
04/20/98
$51.88
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
318061
ART CENTER BLD
GENERAL SUPPLI
2873
04/20/98
$32.29
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
Sign shop
318396
STREET NAME SI
GENERAL SUPPLI
2903
04/20/98
$16.49
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
GENERAL "SUPPLIES
318399
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
2901
COUNCIL CHELn REGISTER 15 -ndR -1998 (18:55) page 16
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188196
04/20/98
$176.78
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
318429
ARENA BLDG /GRO
GENERAL SUPPLI
2943
04/20/98
$22.09
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
Street supplies
318527
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
2911
04/20/98
$133.05
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
Lumber
199180
CENTENNIAL LAK
PAINT
2913
04/20/98
$46.79
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
318829
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
2952
04/20/98
$10.82
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
318904
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
2932
04/20/98
$95.99
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
REPAIR PARTS
319208
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
3016
04/20/98
$40.27
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
Survey tools
319445
ENGINEERING GE
GENERAL SUPPLI
3701
04/20/98
$117.05
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
Paint supply
319542
ARENA BLDG /GRO
PAINT
3078
04/20/98
$91.08
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
REPAIR PARTS
320123
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
3100
04/20/98
$250.99
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
Tables /Counters
320158
MEDIA LAB CONS
CIP
3137
04/20/98
$38.85
KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT
Street dept supplies
320568
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
3158
< *>
$1,600.13*
188197
04/20/98
- $106.50
KREMER SPRING & ALIGNMEN
Bought old springs
080886
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
3011
04/20/98
$364.23
KREMER SPRING & ALIGNMEN
REPAIR PARTS
081299
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2955
< *>
$257.73*
188198
04/20/98
$279.85
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
207061
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$771.70
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
207372
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$2,338.10
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
207459
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$45.40
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
207585
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$626.00
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
207887
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$1,570.20
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
208000
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
< *>
$5,631.25*
188199
04/20/98
$291.84
KUNDE CO INC
Oak wilt program
4969
TREES & MAINTE
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$291.84*
188200
04/20/98
$10.00
LANDRY, STEPHEN
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
040998
FIRE DEPT. GEN
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$10.00*
188201
04/20/98
$653.38
LANIER WORLDWIDE INC
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
51833602
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACEM
1715
< *>
$653.38*
188202
04/20/98
$3,580.00
LASER TECHNOLOGY INC.
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
3689RI
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACEM
1718
04/20/98
$101.00
LASER TECHNOLOGY INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
3743RI
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL SUPPLI
2468
< *>
$3,681.00*
188203
04/20/98
-$9.72
Lathrop Paint Supply Com
GENERAL SUPPLIES
305960
STREET NAME SI
GENERAL SUPPLI
3319
04/20/98
$94.25
Lathrop Paint Supply Com
Paint
326735
BRIDGES GUARD
GUARD RAIL MAT
2887
04/20/98
$86.32
Lathrop Paint Supply Com
GENERAL SUPPLIES
725830
BRIDGES GUARD
GENERAL SUPPLI
2920
< *>
$170.85*
188204
04/20/98
$284.74
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
1899393
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
3020
04/20/98
$257.71
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC.
Sign shop supplies
1900407
STREET NAME SI
GENERAL SUPPLI
3023
04/20/98
$439.55
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC.
REPAIR PARTS
1901448
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
3022
04/20/98
$216.12
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC.
REPAIR PARTS
1901449
DISTRIBUTION
REPAIR PARTS
3021
< *>
$1,198.12*
188205
04/20/98
$37.10
LEEF BROS. INC.
LAUNDRY
033198/G
MAINT OF COURS
LAUNDRY
< *>
$37.10*
188206
04/20/98
$34,972.92
Lester Building Systems
BUILDINGS
97 -12PK
GOLF PROG
BUILDINGS
< *>
$34,972.92*
:OUNCIL CH6, REGISTER 15- . -1998 (18:55) page 17
:HECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188207 04/20/98 $2,510.00 Leukemia Society of Amer Proceeds from promo 033198 GOLF PROG GOLF DOME RECP
< *> $2,510.00*
188208 04/20/98
04/20/98
188209 04/20/98
188210 04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
$26.44
$19.28
$45.72*
$31.51
$31.51*
$4,627.56
$2,113.78
$619.49
$885.21
$13,973.25
$183.59
$4,546.82
$26,949.70*
LINHOFF
LINHOFF
Lloyd, Judy
LOGIS
LOGIS
LOGIS
LOGIS
LOGIS
LOGIS
LOGIS
Film developing 43256 CONTINGENCIES PROF SERVICES
ADVERTISING OTHER 40270 ART CENTER ADM ADVERT OTHER
Craft supplies 040398 ADAPTIVE RECRE GENERAL SUPPLI
DATA
PROCESSING
033198
DATA
PROCESSING
033198
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
033198
DATA
PROCESSING
033198
NEW EQUIPMENT
033198
DATA
PROCESSING
033198
DATA
PROCESSING
033198
FINANCE DATA PROCESSIN
ASSESSING DATA PROCESSIN
CENT SVC GENER PROF SERVICES
CENT SVC GENER DATA PROCESSIN
CENT SVC GENER NEW EQUIP
COMMUNICATIONS DATA PROCESSIN
GENERAL(BILLIN DATA PROCESSIN
188211
04/20/98
$116.84
LONG LAKE TRACTOR & EQUI
Tractor repair parts
238948
GENERAL TURF C
REPAIR PARTS 2880
< *>
$116.84*
188212
04/20/98
$9.00
Lorence, Karen
Class refund
040798
ART CNTR PROG
REGISTRATION F -
< *>
$9.00*
188213
04/20/98
$26.63
LOSS PREVENTION SPECIALI
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8817
LIQUOR
50TH ST
PROF SERVICES
04/20/98
$26.63
LOSS PREVENTION SPECIALI
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8817
LIQUOR
YORK GE
PROF SERVICES
04/20/98
$26.62
LOSS PREVENTION SPECIALI
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8817
VERNON
LIQUOR
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$79.88*
188214
04/20/98
$21.01
M. SHANKEN COMMUNICATION
Wine spectator
370826
LIQUOR
50TH ST
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$21.01*
188215 04/20/98
04/20/98
188216 04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
188219 04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
$436.70 MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC. REPAIR PARTS 29802902 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 2841
$51.06 MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC. REPAIR PARTS 29802993 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 2842
$487.76*
$520.00 MARGROM SKOGLUND WINE IM COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 10004111 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
$1,160.00 MARGROM SKOGLUND WINE IM COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 10004165 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
$870.00 MARGROM SKOGLUND WINE IM COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 10004166 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
$1,592.00 MARGROM SKOGLUND WINE IM COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 10004164 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
$4,142.00*
$1,011.85
$37.30
$68.00
$1,987.25
$90.00
$611.40
$336.40
$65.30
$1,346.70
$43.70
$562.50
$705.35
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 754103
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 754104
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 754105
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 754110
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 754111
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 754182
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 754252
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 754278
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 754279
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 754280
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 754822
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 756663
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
COUNCIL
CHECn REGISTER
15- APR -1998 (18:55)
page 18
CHECK NO DATE
--------------------------------------
CHECK AMOUNT
- - - - --
VENDOR - - - -- ---
DESCRIPTION
- -
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
188219
04/20/98
$36.30
MARK VII
SALES
- - -- ----------------------------------------------------------
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
756664
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$1,580.00
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
756670
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$1,502.55
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
756671
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$998.25
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
757057
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$1,072.90
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
757058
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$141.50
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
757059
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$2.67
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
757078
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$3,376.50
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
757079
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$404.30
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
757080
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$14.80
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
758655
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$50.10
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
758853
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$914.65
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
758854
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$55.95
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
759035
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
04/20/98
$2,917.45
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
759036
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
$85.20
MARK VII
SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
759037
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
< *>
$20,018.87*
188220
04/20/98
$18.49
MATHISON
CO, THE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
1016441
ART SUPPLY GIF
COST OF GD SOL
9909
< *>
$18.49*
188221
04/20/98
04/20/98
$990.45
MCCAREN DESIGN
FERTILIZER
6473
POOL TRACK GRE
FERTILIZER
2097
04/20/98
$881.82
$1,810.50
MCCAREN DESIGN
MCCAREN DESIGN
FERTILIZER
FERTILIZER
6475
POOL TRACK GRE
FERTILIZER
2371
< *>
$3,682.77*
6651
POOL TRACK GRE
FERTILIZER
3081
188222
04/20/98
$70.00
McGlynn,
Tim
Refund soccer game
040198
GOLF FROG
DOME RENTAL
< *>
$70.00*
188223
04/20/98
$81.25
MCMAHON,
DAN
Mileage
040698
TRAINING
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$81.25*
188224
04/20/98
04/20/98
$36.23
$3,320.06
MCNEILUS
MCNEILUS
STEEL
Ballfield supplies
0141511
FIELD MAINTENA
GENERAL SUPPLI
3019
< *>
$3,356.29*
STEEL
Re bar
144508
SNOW & ICE REM
GENERAL SUPPLI
2843
188225
04/20/98
$52.00
MELVIN, PATRICK
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
041398
ADMINISTRATION
MILEAGE
< *>
$52.00*
188226
04/20/98
04/20/98
$14.89
MENARDS *
ACCT #30240251
Bldg supplies
17452
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
3094
04/20/98
$50.87
$12.07
MENARDS *
MENARDS *
ACCT #30240251
GENERAL SUPPLIES
17497
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL SUPPLI
2988
04/20/98
$34.93
MENARDS *
ACCT #30240251
ACCT #30240251
GENERAL SUPPLIES
Cleaning
18015
18015
GOLF ADMINISTR
GENERAL SUPPLI
*>
04/20/98
$109.25
MENARDS *
ACCT #30240251
GENERAL SUPPLIES
18015
GRILL
RANGE
ADVERT PERSONL
GENERAL SUPPLI
3194
<
$222.01*
1.88227
< *>
04/20/98
$100.00
$100.00*
MERFELD,
RURT
Police service
APRIL 19
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
188228
04/20/98
04/20/98
$91.12
$811.42
MERIT SUPPLY
MERIT
Supplies scott
47759
PW BUILDING
CLEANING SUPPL
2699
04/20/98
$386.59
SUPPLY
MERIT SUPPLY
CLEANING SUPPLIES
47784
POOL TRACK GRE
CLEANING SUPPL
2831
04/20/98
$726.11
MERIT SUPPLY
CLEANING SUPPLIES
CLEANING SUPPLIES
47797
47800
PW BUILDING
POOL
CLEANING SUPPL
3115
04/20/98
$948.96
MERIT SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
47814
TRACK GRE
ARENA BLDG /GRO
CLEANING SUPPL
GENERAL SUPPLI
3119
3266
< *>
04/20/98
$354.43
$3,318.63*
MERIT SUPPLY
SAFETY EQUIPMENT
47862
EQUIPMENT OPER
SAFETY EQUIPME
3309
COUNCIL
CHi. REGISTER
15 . -1998 (18:55)
page 19
CHECK NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
188229
04/20/98
$20.00
MESSERLI & KRAMER
Collect fees
032498
GENERAL FD PRO
AMBULANCE FEES
04/20/98
$209.20
MESSERLI & KRAMER
Direct payment
66877
GENERAL FD PRO
AMBULANCE FEES
< *>
$229.20*
188230
04/20/98
$468.39
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY
Tennis nets
25733
PATHS & HARD S
GENERAL SUPPLI
3029
< *>
$468.39*
188231
04/20/98
$312.50
METROPOLITAN AREA PROMOT
ADVERTISING OTHER
8346
PRO SHOP
ADVERT OTHER
04/20/98
$312.50
METROPOLITAN AREA PROMOT
ADVERTISING OTHER
8346
GOLF DOME
ADVERT OTHER
04/20/98
$208.33
METROPOLITAN AREA PROMOT
Community map
8349
50TH ST SELLIN
ADVERT OTHER
04/20/98
$208.33
METROPOLITAN AREA PROMOT
Community map
8349
YORK SELLING
ADVERT OTHER
04/20/98
$208.34
METROPOLITAN AREA PROMOT
Community map
8349
VERNON SELLING
ADVERT OTHER
< *>
$1,250.00*
188232
04/20/96
$158.70
MID - CONTINENT BOTTLERS I
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
67378
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
< *>
$158.70*
188233
04/20/98
$869.03
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
Park bond
8081MB
PKBOND CIP
EQUIP REPLACEM
< *>
$869.03*
188234
04/20/98
$212.60
MIDWEST COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
60026091
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
- $50.85
MIDWEST COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
60026109
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$165.80
MIDWEST COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
64803064
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$95.85
MIDWEST COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
62156029
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$90.65
MIDWEST COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
62156177
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$133.85
MIDWEST COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
60027115
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
< *>
$647.90*
188235
04/20/98
$18.00
Milchman, Michael
Refund handicap
033098
GOLF PROG
COMPUTR HANDIC
< *>
$18.00*
188236
04/20/98
$211.86
MINING AUGER & TOOL WORK
Front head assy
99212
GENERAL STORM
EQUIP MAINT
2905
< *>
$211.86*
188237
04/20/98
$400.10
MINN COMM PAGING
Pagers
040198
POOL TRACK GRE
SVC CONTR EQUI
< *>
$400.10*
188238
04/20/98
$1,372.50
MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN S
Replace service
31265
DISTRIBUTION
CONTR REPAIRS
2934
04/20/98
$1,071.00
MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN S
Water service
31266
DISTRIBUTION
CONTR REPAIRS
2936
04/20/98
$2,784.00
MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN S
Replace service
31267
DISTRIBUTION
CONTR REPAIRS
2935
04/20/98
$315.00
MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN S
Repair hydrant
31275
DISTRIBUTION
CONTR REPAIRS
3229
< *>
$5,542.50*
188239
04/20/98
$80.80
MINNEAPOLIS DEPARTMENT 0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
19980316
POLICE DEPT. G
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$80.80*
188241
04/20/98
$37.28
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
032698
POOL OPERATION
HEAT
04/20/98
$1,002.08
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
FIRE DEPT. GEN
HEAT
04/20/98
$741.73
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
CITY HALL GENE
HEAT
04/20/98
$6,368.97
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
PW BUILDING
HEAT
04/20/98
$1,967.99
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
BUILDING MAINT
HEAT
04/20/98
$770.02
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
CLUB HOUSE
HEAT
04/20/98
$285.51
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
MAINT OF COURS
HEAT
04/20/98
$54.32
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
FRED RICHARDS
HEAT
04/20/98
$2,914.29
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
GOLF DOME
HEAT
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
15 -NPR -1998 (18:55)
page 20
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188241
04/20/98
$541.76
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
ARENA BLDG /GRO
HEAT
04/20/98
$2,211.72
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
ARENA BLDG /GRO
HEAT
04/20/98
$476.50
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
ART CENTER BLD
HEAT
04/20/98
$2,803.55
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
ED BUILDING &
HEAT
04/20/98
$584.97
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
PUMP & LIFT ST
HEAT
04/20/98
$2,979.43
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
DISTRIBUTION
HEAT
04/20/98
$70.00
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
50TH ST OCCUPA
HEAT
04/20/98
$180.61
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098
YORK OCCUPANCY
HEAT
04/20/98
$219.63
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
042098.
VERNON OCCUPAN
HEAT
< *>
$24,210.36*
188242
04/20/98
$73.15
MINNESOTA ELEVATOR INC
Elevator service
030336
POOL TRACK GRE
SVC CONTR EQUI
< *>
$73.15*
188243
04/20/98
$306.19
MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPME
Air release valve
61482
WATER TREATMEN
REPAIR PARTS
2872
< *>
$306.19*
188244
04/20/98
$183.52.
MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIO
ADVERTISING LEGAL
94687
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERTISING LE
04/20/98
$287.00
MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIO
ADVERTISING LEGAL
095300
GOLF ADMINISTR
ADVERT PERSONL
04/20/98
$86.48
MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIO
ADVERTISING LEGAL
99750
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERTISING LE
04/20/98
$84.64
MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIO
ADVERTISING LEGAL
99752
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERTISING LE
04/20/98
$88.32
MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIO
ADVERTISING LEGAL
99753
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERTISING LE
04/20/98
$84.64
MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIO
ADVERTISING LEGAL
99754
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERTISING LE
< *>
$814.60*
188245
04/20/98
$129.86.
MINVALCO
72nd lift station sup
149455
PUMP & LIFT ST
REPAIR PARTS
3039
< *>
$129.86*
188246
04/20/98
$73.95
Mitchell /Repair Informat
Shop windows
5099876
EQUIPMENT OPER
DATA PROCESSIN
3148
04/20/98
$20.00
Mitchell /Repair Informat
HAZ. WASTE DISPOSAL
5118604
EQUIPMENT OPER
HAZ. WASTE DIS
3087
< *>
$93:95*
188247
04/20/98
$652.81
Mizuno USA Inc
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
917518
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
1727
< *>
$652.81*
188248
04/20/98
$12,991.94
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO
New mower
208202
GOLF PROG
MACH. & EQUIP
2572
< *>
$12,991.94*
188249
04/20/98
$335.48
MUNICILITE CO
Lite bar
9777
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
2621
04/20/98
$222.90
MUNICILITE CO
Warning liter
9806
VEHICLE OPERAT
GENERAL SUPPLI
2786
< *>
$558.38*
188250 ..04/20/98
$132.15
MUZAK
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQU
170835
CENTENNIAL LAK
SVC CONTR EQUI
< *>
$132.15*
188251
04/20/98
$249.00
NATIONAL AUTOMATIC SPRIN
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQU
4313
CLUB HOUSE
SVC CONTR EQUI
3198
< *>
$249.00*
188252
04/20/98
$89.83
National Camera Exchange
Flash unit
7021587
COMMUNICATIONS
GENERAL SUPPLI
3007
< *>
$89.83*
188253
04/20/98
$202.41
NEC
NEC books
040198
ST LIGHTING OR
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$202.41*
188254
04/20/98
$508.43
NIBBE, MICHAEL
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
040698
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
,OUNCIL
Ch_ REGISTER
19
d -1998 (18:55)
page 21
:HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
•-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< *>
$508.43*
188255
04/20/98
$100.00
NISSEN, DICK
Police
service
APRIL 19
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
188256
04/20/98
$2,700.00
Noel Painting
Interior
painting
041098
MEDIA LAB CONS
CIP
3068
< *>
$2,700.00*
188257
04/20/98
$870.63
North American Salt Comp
SALT
10350637
SNOW & ICE REM
SALT
04/20/98
$539.75
North American Salt Comp
SALT
10352918
SNOW & ICE REM
SALT
8781
04/20/98
- $870.63
North American Salt Comp
SALT
90047890
SNOW & ICE REM
SALT
< *>
$539.75*
188258
04/20/98
$111.60
NORTH STAR ICE
COST OF
GOODS SOLD MI
87684
VERNON SELLING
CST OF
GDS MIX
04/20/98
$27.90
NORTH STAR ICE
COST OF
GOODS SOLD MI
87685
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF
GDS MIX
04/20/98
$116.18
NORTH STAR ICE
COST OF
GOODS SOLD MI
08533
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GDS MIX
< *>
$255.68*
188259
04/20/98
$36.48
NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL
ACCESSORIES
178026
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
1614
04/20/98
$74.05
NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL
ACCESSORIES
180238
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
1950
04/20/98
$465.08
NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL
REPAIR
PARTS
186722
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR
PARTS
3169
< *>
$575.61*
188260
04/20/98
$573.85
NORTH STAR TURF
Repair parts
164942
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR
PARTS
2989
< *>
$573.85*
188261
04/20/98
$75.00
North Suburban Towing In
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
040698
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL
SUPPLI
< *>
$75.00*
188262
04/20/98
$47.52
NORTHERN HYDRAULICS
TOOLS
50193872
EQUIPMENT OPER
TOOLS
3027
< *>
$47.52*
188263
04/20/98
$44.19
NORTHERN SAFETY CO INC
Reflective tape
43160700
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL
SUPPLI
3043
04/20/98
$44.19
NORTHERN SAFETY CO INC
Reflective tape
436479
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL
SUPPLI
3052
< *>
$88.38*
188264
04/20/98
•$85.11
NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY
COST OF
GOODS SOLD
263348
ART SUPPLY GIF
COST OF
GD SOL
2723
04/20/98
$59.40
NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY
COST OF
GOODS SOLD
263595
ART SUPPLY GIF
COST OF
GD SOL
2589
< *>
$144.51*
188265
04/20/98
$212.57
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRES &
TUBES
45174
EQUIPMENT OPER
TIRES &
TUBES
2547
04/20/98
$79.00
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRES &
TUBES
45193
EQUIPMENT OPER
TIRES &
TUBES
2547
04/20/98
$491.91
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRES &
TUBES
45283
EQUIPMENT OPER
TIRES &
TUBES
2547
04/20/98
$143.75
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRES &
TUBES
45339
EQUIPMENT OPER
TIRES &
TUBES
3110
< *>
$927.23*
188267
04/20/98
$18.15
NSP
LIGHT &
POWER
042098
ST LIGHTING OR
LIGIIT &
POWER
04/20/98
$1,774.86
NSP
LIGIIT &
POWER
042098
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
LIGHT &
POWER
04/20/98
$1,480.77
NSP
LIGHT &
POWER
042098
CITY HALL GENE
LIGHT &
POWER
04/20/98
$2,512.27
NSP
LIGHT &
POWER
042098
PW BUILDING
LIGHT &
POWER
04/20/98
$3,240.82
NSP
LIGHT &
POWER
042098
BUILDING MAINT
LIGHT &
POWER
04/20/98
$2,234.33
NSP
LIGHT &
POWER
042098
CLUB HOUSE
LIGHT &
POWER
04/20/98
$90.46
NSP
LIGHT &
POWER
042098
FRED RICHARDS
LIGHT &
POWER
04/20/98
$1,068.58
NSP
LIGHT &
POWER
042098
GOLF DOME
LIGHT &
POWER
04/20/98
$7,596.39
NSP
LIGHT &
POWER
042098
ARENA BLDG /GRO
LIGHT &
POWER
COUNCIL CHEUn REGISTER 15- APR -1998 (18:55) page 22
CHECK NO DATE
-- - - - - -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM
188267 04/20/98
$331.38
NSP
LIGHT
&
POWER
042098
CENTENNIAL LAK LIGHT
&
POWER
04/20/98
$1,565.48
NSP
LIGHT
&
POWER
042098
PUMP & LIFT ST
LIGHT
&
POWER
04/20/98
$24,623.80
NSP
LIGHT
&
POWER
042098
DISTRIBUTION
LIGHT
&
POWER
04/20/98
$154.67
NSP
LIGHT
&
POWER
042098
TANKS TOWERS &
LIGHT
&
POWER
04/20/98
$785.17
NSP
LIGHT
&
POWER
042098
50TH ST OCCUPA
LIGHT
&
POWER
04/20/98
$484.65
NSP
LIGHT
&
POWER
042098
VERNON OCCUPAN
LIGHT
&
POWER
04/20/98
$547.48
NSP
LIGHT
&
POWER
042098
GENERAL STORM
LIGHT
&
POWER
04/20/98
$244.85
NSP
LIGHT
&
POWER
042098
PONDS & LAKES
LIGHT
&
POWER
04/20/98
$64.62
NSP
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
042098
AQUATIC WEEDS
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$48,818.73*
188268 04/20/98
188269 04/20/98
188270 04/20/98
188271 04/20/98
188272 04/20/98
04/20/98
188273 04/20/98
188274 04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
188275
188276
188279
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
$109.45 Olsen Chain & Cable Co I GENERAL SUPPLIES
$109.45*
$79.00 OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC COST OF GOODS SOLD
$79.00*
$476.64 Paging Network of Minnes Pager rental
$476.64*
$18.00 Palmer, Craig C Refund handicap
$18.00*
$39.30 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CE Hep b Vac
$102.00 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CE Pre employ physical
$141.30*
$3.29 PATRICK & COMPANY
$3.29*
$146.75 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
$299.80 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
$51.80 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
$498.35*
75981 STREET NAME SI GENERAL SUPPLI 2407
9560632 GRILL COST OF GD SOL 1397
040198/F FIRE DEPT. GEN EQUIP RENTAL
040698 GOLF PROG COMPUTR HANDIC
040598 POLICE DEPT. G PROF SERVICES
040598 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL
Balance due 238050
ANIMAL CONTROL GENERAL SUPPLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 53403118 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 53403144 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 53403217 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
$200.00 Peterson, Dorothy Tap group
$200.00*
$34.08
$34.08*
- $12.61
$5.51
- $21.39
-$5.99
-$3.79
-$3.79
$19.11
$168.96
$1,927.63
$2,325.39
$942.90
- $19.60
- $80.16
- $24.55
PETSMART #458
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
033198
Dog grooming 9722
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 3173688
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 3173689
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 3173690
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 3173691
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 3173693
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 3173694
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 375089
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 375091
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 375092
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 375096
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 375293
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 3173842
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 3173843
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 3173844
SENIOR CITIZEN PROF SERVICES
MAINT.OF COURS GENERAL SUPPLI 2985
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
COUNCIL
Ct._ .. REGISTER
1:.
.1R -1998
(18:55)
page 23
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188279
04/20/98
- $47.22
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
3173692
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF GD LIQU
04/20/98
-$9.88
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3173897
YORK SELLING
CST
OF GD WINE
04/20/98
-$3.50
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3173898
YORK SELLING
CST
OF GD WINE
04/20/98
-$5.95
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3173899
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$345.55
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
376893
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF GD LIQU
04/20/98
$1,930.03
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
376894
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$625.95
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS -SOLD
LI
376895
YORK SELLING
CST
OF GD LIQU
04/20/98
$2',902.30
PHILLIPS
WINE.& SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
376896
YORK SELLING
CST
OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$547.40
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
376897
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF GD LIQU
04/20/98
$2,709.67
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
376898
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$1,150.80
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
379005
YORK SELLING
CST
OF GD LIQU
04/20/98
$1,670.20
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
379006
YORK SELLING
CST
OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$93.90
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
379007
YORK SELLING
CST
OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$87.60
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
379068
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$289.93
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
379069
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF GD LIQU
04/20/98
$1,398.73
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
379070
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$657.00
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
379071
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF GD LIQU
04/20/98
$2,791.18
PHILLIPS
WINE & SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
379072
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$41.80
PHILLIPS
WINE& SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
379073
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF GDS BEE
< *>
$22,393.11*
188280
04/20/98
$562.98
PHYSIO CONTROL
SERVICE
CONTRACTS EQU
IV262313
POLICE DEPT. G
SVC
CONTR EQUI
7650
04/20/98
$711.00
PHYSIO CONTROL.
Lifepak
Maint
agreeme
IV262358'FIRE
DEPT. GEN
EQUIP MAINT
9432
< *>
$3,273.98*
188281
04/20/98
$163,029.00
Pierce Manufacturing Inc
Fire
truck chassis
A048238
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP
REPLACEM
1457
< *>
$163,029.00*
188283
04/20/98
$429.41
Pinnacle
Distributing
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
970469
YORK SELLING
CST
OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$317.36
Pinnacle
Distributing
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
970518
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$298.72
Pinnacle
Distributing
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
970520
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$166.50
Pinnacle
Distributing
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
970532
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$20.00
Pinnacle
Distributing
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
970580
50TH ST SELLIN
GENERAL SUPPLI
3217
04/20/98
$20.00
Pinnacle
Distributing
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
970580
YORK SELLING
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$20.00
Pinnacle
Distributing
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
970580
VERNON SELLING
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$575.70
Pinnacle
Distributing
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
970581
YORK SELLING
CST
OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
- $199.90
Pinnacle
Distributing
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
970587
YORK SELLING
CST
OF-GDS MIX
04/20/98
$307.04
Pinnacle
Distributing
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
970616
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$441.37
Pinnacle
Distributing
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
970619
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$221.95
Pinnacle
Distributing
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
970636
YORK SELLING
CST
OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$487.00
Pinnacle
Distributing
COST
OF
GOODS
- PRO
S
970638
PRO SHOP '
COST
OF GDS -PR
1756
04/20/98
$180.75
Pinnacle
Distributing
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
970639
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF GDS MIX
< *>
$3,285.90*
188284
04/20/98
$244.28
PIP PRINTING
Park
card
4597
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRINTING
3073
04/20/98
$757.42
PIP PRINTING
PRINTING
6631
RECYCLING
PRINTING
3166
04/20/98
$190.40
PIP PRINTING
PRINTING
66]]-
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRINTING
3084
< *>
$1,192.10*
188285
04/20/98
$41.00
Polo Ralph Lauren Corpor
COST
OF
GOODS
- PRO
S
609495
PRO SHOP
COST
OF GDS -PR
8832
< *>
$41.00*
188286
04/20/98
$383.24
Polo Ralph Lauren WW Gol
COST
OF
GOODS
- PRO
S
0480813
PRO SHOP
COST
OF GDS -PR
8826
04/20/98
$469.44
Polo Ralph Lauren WW Gol
COST
OF
GOODS
- PRO
S
0497672
PRO SHOP
COST
OF GDS -PR
8826
04/20/98
$45.74
Polo Ralph Lauren WW Gol
COST
OF
GOODS
- PRO
S
0497865
PRO SHOP
COST
OF GDS -PR
8826
COUNCIL CHE( -,, REGISTER 15 -ieR -1998 (18:55) page 24
CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188286 04/20/98 $208.22 Polo Ralph Lauren WW Gol COST OF GOODS - PRO S 0499138 PRO SHOP COST OF GDS -PR 8826
< *> $1,106.64*
188287 04/20/98
188288 04/20/98
188289 04/20/98
188290 04/20/98
188291 04/20/98
04/20/98
188292 04/20/98
188295 04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
04/20/98
188296 04/20/98
$270.78 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS
$270.78*
$3,540.00 PRECISION DYNAMICS
$3,540.00*
$44.98 Press Stock
$44.98*
$254.05 Prestige Flag
$254.05*
$709.72 Print Shop, The
$558.91 Print Shop, The
$1,268.63*
$112.00 PRINTERS SERVICE INC
$112.00*
$278.25
$465.64
$73.45
$523.21
$333.90
$1,295.60
$579.86
$24.35
$25.74
$34.20
$102.60
$34.20
$51.48
$51.48
$273.60
$68-:40
$77.22
- $26.38
$49.90
- $12.73
- $68.58
$325.05
$834.72
.$27.44
$278.25
$1,414.23
$723.55
$1,188.31
$128.80
$9,155.74*
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR.WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRINTING
485911
POLICE DEPT. G
PRINTING
3417
Wristbands
527795
ED ADMINISTRAT
GENERAL SUPPLI
2982
OFFICE SUPPLIES
13875931
GOLF ADMINISTR
OFFICE SUPPLIE
3199
Course supplies
25405
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL SUPPLI
2083
Monthly newsletter 5033
Monthly newsletter 5278
Blade sharpening 14337
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
89788
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
89790
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
92552
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
92554
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
92558
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
92560
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
92569
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
92570
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
74228
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
94226
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
9422.9
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD.WI
94230
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
94231
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
94232
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
94233
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
94234
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
94235
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
84259
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
94366
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
84421
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
84662
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
96123
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
96124
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
96125
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
96129
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
96131
COST.OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
96138
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
96139
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
96140
SENIOR. CITIZEN GENERAL SUPPLI 2210
SENIOR CITIZEN GENERAL SUPPLI 2899
ARENA ICE MAIN EQUIP MAINT
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST•OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
$5,658.09 PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING E PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9801103 GENERAL(BILLIN PROF SERVICES
$5,658.09*
COUNCIL
CH, REGISTER
15 -1998 (18:55)
page 25
CHECK NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
188297
04/20/98
$248.25
Quality Sports Inc
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
120659
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
1723
< *>
$248.25*
188298
04/20/98
$85.00
Rand, Suzanne
Refund swimming
040898
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$85.00*
18829'9
04/20/98
$25.51
RELIABLE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
LLF67200
ED ADMINISTRAT
OFFICE SUPPLIE
3074
< *>
$25.51*
188300
04/20/98
$202.36
Reuter Manufacturing
Ice rental refund
040698
ICE ARENA PROG
ICE RENTAL
< *>
$202.36*
188301
04/20/98
$940.00
Richard Wilson Builders
Framing
1209
MEDIA LAB CONS
CIP
9244
04/20/98
$995.00
Richard Wilson Builders
Trim work
1226
MEDIA LAB CONS
CIP
3129
< *>
$1,935.00*
188302
04/20/98
$11.34
RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPA
REPAIR PARTS
5858
CENTENNIAL LAK
REPAIR PARTS
3296
< *>
$11.34*
188303
04/20/98
$457.16
RINK SYSTEMS INC
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
0090
ARENA BLDG /GRO
CONTR REPAIRS
3080
< *>
$457.16*
188304
04/20/98
$479.25
ROBERT B. HILL
GENERAL SUPPLIES
42261
ARENA BLDG /GRO
GENERAL SUPPLI
2908
< *>
$479.25*
188305
04/20/98
$857.32
Robert Scott - David Bro
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
55127
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
8824
04/20/98
$105.81
Robert Scott - David Bro
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
55110
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
8824
04/20/98
$719.87
Robert Scott - David Bro
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
55124
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
8824
< *>
$1,683.00*
188306
04/20/98
$185.00
Rodje, Candyce
Season pass refund
041398
EDINB /CL PROG
SEASON TICKETS
< *>
$185.00*
188307
04/20/98
$692.00
Roofmasters Inc
Roof repairs
3980381
POOL TRACK GRE
CONTR REPAIRS
2830
< *>
$692.00*
188308
04/20/98
$20.00
S.O.T.A.
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
040698
POLICE DEPT. G
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$20.00*
188309
04/20/98
$193.83
SAFETY KLEEN
HAZ. WASTE DISPOSAL
950207
SUPERV. & OVRH
HAZ. WASTE DIS
3143
< *>
$193.83*
188310
04/20/98
$18.00
Schaber, Tom
Refund handicap
033098
GOLF PROG
COMPUTR HANDIC
< *>
$18.00*
188311
04/20/98
$770.00
Schaefer, Dan
Refund soccer league
040198
GOLF PROG
DOME RENTAL
< *>
$770.00*
188312
04/20/98
$676.38
SECURITY LINK
ALARM SERVICE
24306771
CLUB HOUSE
ALARM SERVICE
04/20/98
$90.00
SECURITY LINK
ALARM SERVICE
24308937
CENTENNIAL LAK
ALARM SERVICE
04/20/98
$90.00
SECURITY LINK
ALARM SERVICE
24308940
POOL TRACK GRE
ALARM SERVICE
< *>
$856.38*
188313
04/20/98
$47.26
4SEELYE PLASTICS
Piping
488005
WATER TREATMEN
REPAIR PARTS
2939
< *>
$47.26*
COUNCIL
CHECn REGISTER
15 -AvR -1998 (18:55)
page 26
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188314
04/20/98
$28,641.09
SEH
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
45264
TH100 & W 77TH
CIP
04/20/98
$448.51
SEH
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
46130
GENERAL(BILLIN
PROF SERVICES
04/20/98
$9,893.72
SEH
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
46131
TH100 & W 77TH
CIP
04/20/98
$1,637.16
SEH
Monitor sani sewer
46338
SEWER TREATMEN
PROF SERVICES
3226
< *>
$40,620.48*
188315
04/20/98
$100.00
SHEPARD, JOHN
Police service
APRIL 19
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
188316
04/20/98
$424.35
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
PAINT
18126
ARENA BLDG /GRO
PAINT
3133
04/20/98
$31.44
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
PAINT
19025
ARENA BLDG /GRO
PAINT
2991
< *>
$455.79*
188317
04/20/98
$97.52
Shutters 'n Shades
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
040798
RANGE
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$97.52*
188318
04/20/98
$3,900.00
Sid Featherstone
New roof /gutters
033198
CDBG PROG
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$3,900.00*
188319
04/20/98
$15.00
SIEMS, JEFFERY
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
033098
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$15.00*
188320
04/20/98
$74.55
SIGNAL SYSTEM
PRINTING
9962
ARENA ADMINIST
PRINTING
3272
< *>
$74.55*
188321
04/20/98
$75.93
SIMS SECURITY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8539859
POOL TRACK GRE
PROF SERVICES
04/20/98
$60.75
SIMS SECURITY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8554070
POOL TRACK GRE
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$136.68*
188322
04/20/98
$54.70
Smith of Galeton Gloves
Stock gloves
266297
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPME
3010
< *>
$54.70*
188323
04/20/98
$954.60
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
82422
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$2,017.10
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
82424
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$23.40
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
82429
FRED RICHARDS
CST OF GDS BEE
1390
04/20/98
$470.95
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
82523
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$278.75
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
82710
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$42.90 .
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
82710
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
04/20/98
$2,563.25
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
82713
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$64.35
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
82714
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
< *>
$6,415.30*
188324
04/20/98
$613.26
SPALDING
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
50824748
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
04/20/98
$471.96
SPALDING
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
50985037
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
9484
04/20/98
$128.52 -
SPALDING
COST OF GOODS - PRO S
50851402
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
9484
< *>
$1,213.74*
188325
04/20/98
$15.13
SPS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
2892736
BUILDINGS
GENERAL SUPPLI
3153
04/20/98
$142.84
SPS
REPAIR PARTS
2895678
CITY HALL GENE
REPAIR PARTS
3247
04/20/98
$282.61
SPS
Plumbing
2895679
CITY HALL GENE
REPAIR PARTS
3247
04/20/98
$17.00
SPS
Fire station repair
2895683
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
3144
< *>
$457.58*
188326
04/20/98
$440.32
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
27136
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CIP
04/20/98
$16,522.24
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
27307
TH 62 /FRANCE
CIP
'OUNCIL
CHE(- .EGISTER
15 -i. 1998 (18:55)
page 27
'HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188326
04/20/98
$2,034.94
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
29241
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CIP
04/20/98
$1,070.57
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
29282
ENGINEERING GE
PROF SERVICES
04/20/98
$550.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
25934
ST 78TH & CAHI
CIP
04/20/98
$13,066.62
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
27308
TH 62 /FRANCE
CIP
04/20/98
$2,369.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
29242
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CIP
< *>
$36,053.69*
188327
04/20/98
$100.00
St. Louis Park High Scho
Reimbursment
040298
EDINB /CL PROG
RENTAL INCOME
< *>
$100.00*
188328
04/20/98
$3,125.50
STAR TRIBUNE
Help wanted ads
033198
CENT SVC GENER
ADVERT PERSONL
< *>
$3,125.50*
188329
04/20/98
$1,203.45
STEPP MFG CO INC
Pump
14481
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2840
< *>
$1,203.45*
188330
04/20/98
$417.48
STREICHERS
AMMUNITION
496531
POLICE DEPT. G
AMMUNITION
3274
< *>
$417.48*
188331
04/20/98
$19.16
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
20149
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2951
04/20/98
$6.05
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
20583
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2962
04/20/98
$1,057.64
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
Parts
321646
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2961
04/20/98
$561.24
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
CVCS3214
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2957
04/20/98
$561.24
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
CVCS3214
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS
2957
04/20/98
$181.07
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
20831
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2965
04/20/98
$846.88
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
20832
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2956
04/20/98
$450.00
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
CVCB3217
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2973
04/20/98
$450.00
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
CVCB3217
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS
2973
< *.>
$4,133.28*
188332
04/20/98
$84.14
SUBURBAN PROPANE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
437600.
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
2741
04/20/98
$141.72
SUBURBAN PROPANE
GASOLINE
031798
ARENA ICE MAIN
GASOLINE
< *>
$225.86*
188333
04/20/98
$144.50
SUNDIN, ROSALIE
AC service
041098
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
04/20/98
$67.50
SUNDIN, ROSALIE
CRAFT SUPPLIES
041098
ART CENTER ADM
CRAFT SUPPLIES
< *>
$212.00*
188334
04/20/98
$100.00
SWANSON, HAROLD
Police service
APRIL 19
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
188335
04/20/98
$23.00
SWENSON, SOLVEI
MEETING EXPENSE
040798
CONTINGENCIES
MEETING EXPENS
< *>
$23.00*
188336
04/20/98
$439.72
T.C. MOULDING & SUPPLY
COST OF GOODS SOLD
177358DI
ART SUPPLY GIF
COST OF GD SOL
2597
< *>
$439.72*
188337
04/20/98
$85.18
TARGET
Batteries
10435
POOL TRACK GRE
GENERAL SUPPLI
7499
04/20/98
$105.36
TARGET
GENERAL SUPPLIES
98251
ART SUPPLY GIF
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$22.35
TARGET
GENERAL SUPPLIES
46442
GOLF ADMINISTR
GENERAL SUPPLI
3001
04/20/98
$89.39
TARGET
GENERAL SUPPLIES
80970
ART SUPPLY GIF
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$302.28*
188338
04%20/98
$126.35
TEAM MARKETING COMPANY I
Film for park passes
56923
ED ADMINISTRAT
OFFICE SUPPLIE
3291
< *>
$126.35*
COUNCIL
CHEC.n REGISTER
15 -APR -1998 (18:55)
page 28
CHECK NO DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
188339
04/20/98
$120.40
TERMINAL SUPPLY CO
REPAIR PARTS
4610601
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2163
04/20/98
$236.75
TERMINAL SUPPLY CO
REPAIR PARTS
54252
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2752
< *>
$357.15*
188340
04/20/98
$11,418.35
THOMSEN- NYBECK
Prosecuting
120918
LEGAL SERVICES
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$11,418.35*
188341
04/20/98
- $48.00
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
127968.
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$6.25
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
129431
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$1,641.95
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
129505
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$34.95
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
129506
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$131.60
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
129904
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
04/20/98
$93.60
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
129904
GRILL
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$298.00
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
129905
GRILL
CST OF GDS BEE
1399
04/20/98
$2,047.65
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
130027
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$39.25
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
130028
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
< *>
$4,245.25*
188342
04/20/98
$1,079.70
TITLEIST
COST OF GOODS - PRO
S
1332734
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
8830
04/20/98
$106.56
TITLEIST
COST OF GOODS - PRO
S
1359534
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
8830
< *>
$1,186.26*
188343
04/20/98
$16,717.07
TKDA Engineers, Architec
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
039883
GENERAL(BILLIN
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$16,717.07*
188344
04/20/98
$15.00
TODD, DARRELL
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
041098
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$15.00*
18.8345
04/20/98
$12.42
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPL
Welding supplies
165749
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$305.34
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPL
Welding supplies
166363
MAINT OF COURS
TOOLS
.2906
2983
04/20/98
04/20/98
$58.02
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPL
Welding supplies
166735
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
2937
04/20/98
$143.95
$36.32
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPL
TOLL
GENERAL SUPPLIES
166907
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
2950
04/20/98
$117.18
GAS & WELDING SUPPL
TOLL GAS
Sign shop supplies
167355
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
3026
< *>
$673.23*
& WELDING S[JPPL
Cylinder rental
575163
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
3238
188346
04/20/98
$22.67
TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS I
GENERAL SUPPLIES
5539
YORK SELLING
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$22.67*
188347
*>
04/20/98
$2,502.75
TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE
Fencing
2599
GOLF DOME
REPAIR PARTS
2900
<
$2,502.75*
188348
04/20/98
04/20/98
$65.94
Transportation Component
ACCESSORIES
A869985
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
3008
$36.92
Transportation Component
REPAIR PARTS
A870246
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
3008
< *>
$102.86*
188349
04/20/98
$350.50
TWIN CITIES WRECKER SALE
REPAIR' PARTS
124972
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR'PARTS
04/20/98
- $174.50
TWIN CITIES WRECKER SALE
REPAIR PARTS
125157
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
3257
< *>
$176.00*
188350
04/20/98
$1,550.61
TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO
REPAIR PARTS
047595
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
2836
*>
04/20/98
$199.11
TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO
REPAIR PARTS
15088
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
2836
<
$1,749.72*
188351
04/20/98
$34.72
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO
Oxygen
416688
FIRE DEPT. GEN
FIRST AID SUPP
:OUNCIL
CHE. REGISTER
15 -._ _. -1998 (18:55)
page 29
'HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*>
$34.72*
188352
04/20/98
$495.23
U.S. Filter /Waterpro
Water main parts
403575
DISTRIBUTION
REPAIR PARTS
2871
04/20/98
$654.98
U.S. Filter /Waterpro
Water main parts
403576
DISTRIBUTION
REPAIR PARTS
3312
< *>
$1,150.21*
188353
04/20/98
$2,590.26
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
040198
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW '
04/20/98
$107.35
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
GENERAL SUPPLIES
040198
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL SUPPLI
04/20/98
$981.72
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
040198
RESERVE PROGRA
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$3,679.33*
188354
04/20/98
$180.00
URDAHL, CATHERINE NELSON
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
040698
POOL OPERATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$180.00*
188355
04/20/98
$8.04
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
031898
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$58.19
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
042098
DARE
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$4,070.07
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
042098
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$402.87
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
042098
SKATING & HOCK
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$69.18
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
042098
BUILDING MAINT
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$889.23
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
042098
CLUB HOUSE
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$60.04
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
042098
MAINT OF COURS
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$343.02
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
042098
ARENA BLDG /GRO
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$251.99
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
042098
ART CENTER BLD
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$62.19
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
042098
PUMP & LIFT ST
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$526.96
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
042098
DISTRIBUTION
TELEPHONE
04/20/98
$34.26
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
042098
VERNON OCCUPAN
TELEPHONE
< *>
$6,776.04*
188356
04/20/98
$11.74
US West the Directory So
Advertising
40128940
50TH ST SELLIN
ADVERT OTHER
04/20/98
$34.00
US West the Directory So
Office supplies
4204747
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
2701
< *>
$45.74*
188357
04/20/98
$495.60
VALLIERE, JOHN
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
033198
GOLF ADMINISTR
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$495.60*
188358
04/20/98
$483.14
VAN PAPER CO.
PAPER SUPPLIES
208841
CITY HALL GENE
PAPER SUPPLIES
3067
04/20/98
$694.19
VAN PAPER CO.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
209215
CLUB HOUSE
GENERAL SUPPLI
3197
< *>
$1,177.33*
188359
04/20/98
$198.75
VANTAGE ELECTRIC
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
14946
POOL TRACK GRE
CONTR REPAIRS
3292
< *>
$198.75*
188360
04/20/98
$88.00
VINTAGE ONE WINES
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
2364
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$178.00
VINTAGE ONE WINES
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
2386
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
< *>
$266.00*
188361
04/20/98
$4,000.00
VOGT HEATING & AIR CONDT
HVAC system
8523
PKBOND CIP
EQUIP REPLACEM
04/20/98
$4,170.00
VOGT HEATTNG & AIR CONDT
HVAC system
8692
PKROND CIP
EQUIP REPLACEM
9513
< *>
$8,170.00*
188362
04/20/98
$34.06
Voss Lighting
Elec supplies
20158020
CLUB HOUSE
REPAIR PARTS
3113
< *>
$34.06*
188363
04/20/98
$24.43
WALSER FORD
REPAIR PARTS
63302
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2969
04/20/98
$41.74
WALSER FORD
REPAIR PARTS
63349
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
2969
COUNCIL
CHECn REGISTER
15- APR - 1998
(18:55)
page 30
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*>
$66.17*
188364
04/20/98
$100.00
WALSH, WILLIAM
Police
service
APRIL 19
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
188365
04/20/98
$223.31
WEIGLE, SUE
MILEAGE
OR ALLOWANCE
033198
PARK ADMIN.
MILEAGE
< *>
$223.31*
188366
04/20/98
$637.34
Welsh Companies Inc
May
CAM
042098
YORK OCCUPANCY
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$637.34*
188367
04/20/98
$639.65
WEST WELD SUPPLY CO.
Stock
supplies
13797
EQUIPMENT OPER
WELDING SUPPLI
3018
04/20/98
$484.30
WEST WELD SUPPLY CO.
ACCESSORIES
14008
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
3111
< *>
$1,123.95*
188368
04/20/98
$604.92
WH PENNEY CO INC.
EQUIPMENT
REPLACEMENT
209080
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACEM
< *>
$604.92*
188369
04/20/98
$2,811.05
WHEELER HARDWARE CO
CONSTR.
IN PROGRESS
55139
ICE ARENA PROG
CIP
2199
< *>
$2,811.05*
188370
04/20/98
$144.90
WILSON SPORTING GOODS CO
COST
OF
GOODS
- PRO S
1725366
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
9480
04/20/98
$93.90
WILSON SPORTING GOODS CO
COST
OF
GOODS-
PRO S
1727611
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
9480
04/20/98
$1,648.20
WILSON SPORTING GOODS CO
COST
OF
GOODS
- PRO S
17338'09
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
9480
< *>
$1,887.00*
188372
04/20/98
- $20.46
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3436
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$31.33
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3463
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$736.49
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3464
50TH -ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$186.70
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3650
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$641.91
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3654
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
- $11.63
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3738
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$875.04
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3770
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$971.46
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3771
YORK SELLING .CST
OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$2,054.18
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3772
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$45.75
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
3773
50TH'ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
04/20/98
$384.05
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
4011
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$357.31
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
4025.
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$546.93
WINE COMPANY, THE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
4026.
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
< *>
$6,799.06*
186373
04/20/98
$32.02
WIS -CON TOTAL POWER CORP
REPAIR PARTS
344967
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
3174
< *>
$32.02*
188374
04/20/98
$262.75
Wizardly Teleproductions
Sump
pump video
Q8034EDI
COMMUNICATIONS
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$262.75*
188375
04/20/98
$300.00
Wolahan, Janet
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
041098
ART SUPPLY GIF
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$300.00*
188376
04/20/98
$469.00
WORLD CLASS WINES INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
70159
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$647.72
WORLD CLASS WINES INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
70309
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$110.19
WORLD CLASS WINES INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
70310.
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$683.38
WORLD CLASS WINES INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
70311
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
04/20/98
$353.19
WORLD CLASS WINES INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
70466
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
COUNCIL
CITE 2EGISTER
15- -1998 (18:55)
page 31
CHECK NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM
188376
04/20/98
$578.00
WORLD CLASS WINES INC
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
70467
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
< *>
$2,841.48*
188377
04/20/98
$175.00
WORLD WATERPARK ASSOCIAT
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
040698
POOL ADMIN
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$175.00*
188378
04/20/98
$100.00
WROBLESKI, HENRY
Police services
APRIL 19
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
188379
04/20/98
$804.47
XEROX CORPORATION
Maint charge
61730906
CENT SVC GENER
EQUIP RENTAL
< *>
$804.47*
188380
04/20/98
$12.73
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
SAFETY EQUIPMENT
54061142
GOLF DOME
SAFETY EQUIPME 3195
< *>
$12.73*
188381
04/20/98
$726.13
ZIEGLER INC
REPAIR PARTS
PC000113
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS 2971
< *>
$726.13*
$968,447.77*
'OUNCIL
CHECK SUMMARY
15- APR -1998 (18:57) page 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'UND
#
10
GENERAL FUND
$356,217.53
'UND
#
11
COMMUNITY DEVELP. BLOCK GR
$3,900.00
'UND
#
12
COMMUNICATIONS
$1,342.72
'UND
#
15
WORKING CAPITAL
$13,423.98
'UND
#
23
ART CENTER
$5,647.54
'UND
#
25
GOLF DOME FUND
$7,171.10
'UND
#
26
SWIMMING POOL FUND
$4,675.63
'UND
#
27
GOLF COURSE FUND
$77,727.56
'UND
#
28
ICE ARENA FUND
$20,024.61
'UND
#
30
EDINBOROUGH /CENTENNIAL LAK
$18,722.33
'UND
#
40
UTILITY FUND
$76,489.13
'UND
#
41
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
$4,102.83
'UND
#
42
RECYCLING PROGRAM
$34,858.59
'UND
#
50
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
$205,090.80
'UND
#
60
CONSTRUCTION FUND
$113,519.04
'UND
#
61
PARK BOND FUND
$25,534.38
$968,447.77+
'OUNCIL
CHECK ,,-jISTER
03 -APk X998 (18:42)
page 1
'HECK NO
CHECK DT
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
184365
03/06/98
$316,000.00
CITY OF
EDINA
Payroll
transfer
030698.
LIQUOR PROG
CASH
03/06/98
- $316,000.00
CITY OF
EDINA
Payroll
transfer
030698.
LIQUOR PROG
CASH
< *>
S0.00*
184366
03/20/98
$245,000.00
CITY OF
EDINA
Payroll
transfer
032098
LIQUOR PROG
CASH
03/20/98
- $245,000.00
CITY OF
EDINA
Payroll
transfer
032098
LIQUOR PROG
CASH
< *>
$0.00*
187018
03/02/98
$23,760.84
AIRENA
INC
Dome
construction
020998
GOLF DOME
GOLF DOME
< *>
$23,760.84*
187019
03/02/98
$85.00
HALL, MARY
Services Edinborough
032698
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO
SVC OTHER
< *>
$85.00*
187020
03/02/98-
- $45.51
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
WI
579571
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/02/98
- $52.12
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
LI
579574
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/02/98
-$9.75
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
LI
579575
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/02/98
- $172.67
QUALITY
WINE
' COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
WI
022398
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/02/98
$1,685.73
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
WI
579934
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/02/98
$21.99
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
BE
579934CO
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GDS BEE
03/02/98
$1,065.60
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
WI
579985
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/02/98
$32.10
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
LI
580632
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/02/98
$1,702.21
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
LI
580633
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/02/98
$689.04
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
LI
580658
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/02/98
$4,979.15
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
LI
580659
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/02/98
$1,638.04
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
WI
579986
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
< *>
$11,533.81*
187021
03/02/98
$564.90
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE
CO HOSPITALIZATION
022398
CENT SVC GENER
HOSPITALIZATIO
< *>
$564.90*
187022
03/09/98
$7,430.75
LJR INC
I -494
Commission
I494/36
I -494 COMMISSI
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$7,430.75*
187023
03/09/98
-$9.00
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
WI
580962
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/09/98
- $66.24
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
LI
581780
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/09/98
$1,279.42
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
WI
582329
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/09/98
$4,070.79
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
WI
582346
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/09/98
$2,257.97
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
LI
582347
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/09/98
$3,152.70
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
LI
582659
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/09/98
$6,107.51
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
LI
582660
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/09/98
$2,205.97
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
LI
582661
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/09/98
$159.77
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
LI
583487
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
< *>
$19,158.89*
187431
03/16/98
$750.00
MINNESOTA POLLUTION
CON Waste
water school
031198
TRAINING
CONF &
SCHOOLS
< *>
$750.00*
187432
03/16/98
$46.74
PERA
PERA
031698
GENERAL FD PRO
P.E.R.A.
PAYAB
< *>
$46.74*
187433
03/16/98
$64,040.81
PERA
PERA
031698
GENERAL FD PRO
P.E.R.A.
PAYAB
< *>
$64,040.81*
187434
03/16/98
$376.40
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS SOLD
WI
582328
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
COUNCIL CHEC... REGISTER 03 --eR -1998 (18:42) page 2
CHECK NO
CHECK DT
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
187434
03/16/98
- $222.49
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
583275
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/16/98
$1,634.07
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
584401
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/16/98
$797.83
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
584402
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/16/98
$2,431.43
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
584473
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/16/98
$2,768.44
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
584738
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/16/98
$1,015.84
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
584754
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/16/98
$2,475.54
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
584755
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/16/98
$43.51
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
585078
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/16/98
$22.70
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
585096
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
< *>
$11,343.27*
187435
03/16/98
$193.83
SAFETY KLEEN
HAZ.
WASTE DISPOSAL
335164
SUPERV. & OVRH
HAZ.
WASTE DIS
< *>
$193.83*
187436
03/23/98
$41,246.00
MEDICA
HOSPITALIZATION
19809110
CENT SVC GENER
HOSPITALIZATIO
< *>
$41,246.00*
187437
03/23/98
$64,137.32
PERA
P.E.R.A.
PAYABLE
0323
GENERAL FD PRO
P.E.R.A.
PAYAB
< *>
$64,137.32*
187438
03/23/98
$46.74
PERA
P.E.R.A.
PAYABLE
032398
GENERAL FD PRO
P.E.R.A.
PAYAB
< *>
$46.74*
187440
03/23/98
$1,294.13
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
583702
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/23/98
- $26.25
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
584892
SOTH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/23/98
-$8.75
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
584896
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/23/98
$85.60
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
585233
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/23/98
$937.53
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
585404
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/23/98
- $156.45
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
585457
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/23/98
$3,199.19
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
585970
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/23/98
$1,413.93
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
586068
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/23/98
$2,714.18
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
586069
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/23/98
$3,099.31
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
586886
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/23/98
$889.22
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
586890
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/23/98
$4,065.68
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
586893
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/23/98
$133.29
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
586909
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/23/98
-$9.92
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
587012
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/23/98
-$6.00
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
587210
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/23/98
- $35.00
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
587258
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
< *>
$17,589.69*
187441
03/30/98
$41.27
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
584757
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/30/98
$1,576.25
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
588433
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/30/98
$1,468.80
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
588449
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/30/98
$18.24
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
588449CO
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GDS BEE
03/30/98
$562.01
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
588577
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/30/98
$2,355.18
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
588686
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/30/98
$774.46
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
588687
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
03/30/98
$3,261.42
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
588714
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
03/30/98
$1,218.14
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
588744
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
< *>
$11,275.77*
187442
03/30/98
$563..20
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO
BASIC LIFE AND
COBRA
032498
CENT SVC GENER
HOSPITALIZATIO
< *>
$563.20*
$273,767.56*
—
COUNCIL
CHEI
JMMARY FOR HAND CHECKS
03 -e 1998 (18:43) page 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUND #
10
GENERAL FUND
$170,839.54
FUND #
25
GOLF DOME FUND
$23,760.84
FUND #
30
EDINBOROUGH /CENTENNIAL LAK
$85.00
FUND #
40
UTILITY FUND
$750.00
FUND #
50
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
$70,901.43
FUND #
73
I -494 COMMISSION
$7,430.75
$273,767.56*